Proximal Hamstring Repair: A Biomechanical Analysis of Variable Suture Anchor Constructs

被引:6
|
作者
Gerhardt, Michael B. [1 ,2 ]
Assenmacher, Benjamin S. [1 ,2 ]
Chahla, Jorge [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Arthrex Biomech Lab, Naples, FL USA
[2] Cedars Sinai Kerlan Jobe Inst, 2020 Santa Monica Blvd,Suite 400, Santa Monica, CA 90404 USA
来源
ORTHOPAEDIC JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE | 2019年 / 7卷 / 02期
关键词
hamstring; tendon repair; biomechanics; anchor; hamstring injury; ROTATOR CUFF REPAIR; MANAGEMENT; INJURIES;
D O I
10.1177/2325967118824149
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Despite an abundance of literature regarding construct strength for a myriad of anchors and anchor configurations in the shoulder, there remains a paucity of biomechanical studies detailing the efficacy of these implants for proximal hamstring repair. Purpose: To biomechanically evaluate the ultimate failure load and failure mechanism of knotless and knotted anchor configurations for hamstring repair. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 17 cadaveric specimens divided into 3 groups composed of intact hamstring tendons as well as 2 different anchor configurations (all-knotted and all-knotless) underwent first cyclic loading and subsequent maximal loading to failure. This protocol entailed a 10-N preload, followed by 100 cycles incrementally applied from 20 to 200 N at a frequency of 0.5 Hz, and ultimately followed by a load to failure with a loading rate of 33 mm/s. The ultimate failure load and mechanism of failure were recorded for each specimen, as was the maximal displacement of each bone-tendon interface subsequent to maximal loading. Analysis of variance was employed to calculate differences in the maximal load to failure as well as the maximal displacement between the 3 study groups. Holm-Sidak post hoc analysis was applied when necessary. Results: The all-knotless suture anchor construct failed at the highest maximal load of the 3 groups (767.18 +/- 93.50 N), including that for the intact tendon group (750.58 +/- 172.22 N). There was no statistically significant difference between the all-knotless and intact tendon groups; however, there was a statistically significant difference in load to failure when the all-knotless construct was compared with the all-knotted technique (549.56 +/- 20.74 N) (P = .024). The most common mode of failure in both repair groups was at the suture-tendon interface, whereas the intact tendon group most frequently failed via avulsion of the tendon from its insertion site. Conclusion: Under biomechanical laboratory testing conditions, proximal hamstring repair using all-knotless suture anchors outperformed the all-knotted suture anchor configuration with regard to elongation during cyclic loading and maximal load to failure. Failure in the all-knotted repair group was at the suture-tendon interface in most cases, whereas the all-knotless construct failed most frequently at the musculotendinous jun
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Biomechanical Evaluation of Proximal Hamstring Repair: All-Suture Anchor Versus Titanium Suture Anchor
    Otto, Alexander
    DiCosmo, Alyssa M.
    Baldino, Joshua B.
    Mehl, Julian
    Obopilwe, Elifho
    Cote, Mark P.
    Imhoff, Andreas B.
    Beitzel, Knut
    Mazzocca, Augustus D.
    Coyner, Katherine
    ORTHOPAEDIC JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2020, 8 (01)
  • [2] Proximal Hamstring Repair Strength A Biomechanical Analysis at 3 Hip Flexion Angles
    Harvey, L. C. D. R. Margaret Ann
    Singh, Hardeep
    Obopilwe, Elifho
    Charette, Ryan
    Miller, Suzanne
    ORTHOPAEDIC JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2015, 3 (04):
  • [3] Distal triceps transosseous cruciate versus suture anchor repair using equal constructs: a biomechanical comparison
    Carpenter, Shannon R.
    Stroh, D. Alex
    Melvani, Roshan
    Parks, Brent G.
    Camire, Lyn M.
    Murthi, Anand M.
    JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2018, 27 (11) : 2052 - 2056
  • [4] Biomechanical Analysis of an Arthroscopic Brostrom Ankle Ligament Repair and a Suture Anchor-Augmented Repair
    Giza, Eric
    Whitlow, Scott R.
    Williams, Brady T.
    Acevedo, Jorge I.
    Mangone, Peter G.
    Haytmanek, C. Thomas
    Curry, Eugene E.
    Turnbull, Travis Lee
    LaPrade, Robert F.
    Wijdicks, Coen A.
    Clanton, Thomas O.
    FOOT & ANKLE INTERNATIONAL, 2015, 36 (07) : 836 - 841
  • [5] A Meta-Analysis of Biomechanical Studies for Suture Button Pullout Versus Suture Anchor Repair of Flexor Digitorum Profundus Avulsions
    Imbergamo, Casey M.
    Sequeira, Sean B.
    Miles, Megan R.
    Means Jr, Kenneth R.
    HAND-AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR HAND SURGERY, 2024, 19 (04): : 671 - 678
  • [6] Biomechanical Comparison of Transosseous Versus Suture Anchor Repair of the Subscapularis Tendon
    Wheeler, Daniel J.
    Garabekyan, Tigran
    Lugo, Roberto
    Buckley, Jenni M.
    Jones, Christopher
    Lotz, Marielena
    Lotz, Jeffery C.
    Ma, C. Benjamin
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2010, 26 (04) : 444 - 450
  • [7] Biomechanical Characteristics of Suture Anchor Implants for Flexor Digitorum Profundus Repair
    Halat, Gabriel
    Negrin, Lukas
    Koch, Thomas
    Erhart, Jochen
    Platzer, Patrick
    Hajdu, Stefan
    Streicher, Johannes
    JOURNAL OF HAND SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2014, 39 (02): : 256 - 261
  • [8] Anatomic Knot Suture Anchor Versus Knotless Suture Anchor Technique for Anterior Talofibular Ligament Repair: A Biomechanical Comparison
    Li, Hong
    Xu, Hanlin
    Hua, Yinghui
    Chen, Wenbo
    Li, Hongyun
    Chen, Shiyi
    ORTHOPAEDIC JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2020, 8 (01)
  • [9] Complete proximal Hamstring Tendon Rupture Anchor based Mechanical Suture Technique for Reduction and Fixation
    Bauer, S.
    Riegger, M.
    Reichert, W.
    Blakeney, W. G.
    Haag, C.
    UNFALLCHIRURG, 2016, 119 (12): : 1043 - 1048
  • [10] Biomechanical evaluation of a hybrid suture and anchor-based hip capsular repair
    Degen, Ryan M.
    Pasic, Nick
    Baha, Pardis
    Getgood, Alan
    Burkhart, Timothy A.
    CLINICAL BIOMECHANICS, 2021, 81