Current Issue Search Articles Instructions for authors
 

 HOME | Login   

 

 Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Print this article Email this article Bookmark this page
 Users online: 102


  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusions
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1378    
    Printed74    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded7    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 
 
 Table of Contents  
Year : 2013  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 46-51   


 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

An in-vitro study of rotator cuff tear and repair kinematics using single- and double-row suture anchor fixation

1 Department of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London, United Kingdom
2 Children's Hospital Boston and Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA
3 Bioengineering Research Laboratory, Hand and Upper Limb Centre, St Joseph's Health Care London, 268 Grosvenor St., London Ontario; Department of Surgery, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada
4 Bioengineering Research Laboratory, Hand and Upper Limb Centre, St Joseph's Health Care London, 268 Grosvenor St., London Ontario; Department of Surgery; Biomedical Engineering; Mechanical and Materials Engineering, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada

Correspondence Address:
Kenneth J Faber
Hand and Upper Limb Centre, St. Joseph's Health Care London, 268 Grosvenor Street, London, Ontario N6A 4L6
Canada
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0973-6042.114224

Get Permissions

 

 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Article in PDF (844 KB)
Reader Comments
Access Statistics
Citation Manager
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

Date of Web Publication29-Jun-2013

   Abstract 

Purpose: Double-row suture anchor fixation of the rotator cuff was developed to reduce repair failure rates. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of simulated rotator cuff tears and subsequent repairs using single- and double-row suture anchor fixation on three-dimensional shoulder kinematics. It was hypothesized that both single- and double-row repairs would be effective in restoring active intact kinematics of the shoulder.
Materials and Methods: Sixteen fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulder specimens (eight matched pairs) were tested using a custom loading apparatus designed to simulate unconstrained motion of the shoulder. In each specimen, the rotator cuff was sectioned to create a medium-sized (2 cm) tear. Within each pair, one specimen was randomized to a single-row suture anchor repair, while the contralateral side underwent a double-row suture anchor repair. Joint kinematics were recorded for intact, torn, and repaired scenarios using an electromagnetic tracking device.
Results: Active kinematics confirmed that a medium-sized rotator cuff tear affected glenohumeral kinematics when compared to the intact state. Single- and double-row suture anchor repairs restored the kinematics of the intact specimen.
Conclusions: This study illustrates the effects of medium-sized rotator cuff tears and their repairs on active glenohumeral kinematics. No significant difference ( P ≥ 0.10) was found between the kinematics of single- and double-row techniques in medium-sized rotator cuff repairs.
Clinical Relevance: Determining the relative effects of single- and double-row suture anchor repairs of the rotator cuff will allow physicians to be better equipped to treat patients with rotator cuff disease.


Keywords: Double-row, glenohumeral joint, rotator cuff, single-row, suture anchor repair


How to cite this article:
Kedgley AE, Shore BJ, Athwal GS, Johnson JA, Faber KJ. An in-vitro study of rotator cuff tear and repair kinematics using single- and double-row suture anchor fixation . Int J Shoulder Surg 2013;7:46-51

How to cite this URL:
Kedgley AE, Shore BJ, Athwal GS, Johnson JA, Faber KJ. An in-vitro study of rotator cuff tear and repair kinematics using single- and double-row suture anchor fixation . Int J Shoulder Surg [serial online] 2013 [cited 2016 May 22];7:46-51. Available from: http://www.internationalshoulderjournal.org/text.asp?2013/7/2/46/114224



   Introduction Top


Rotator cuff tears are a common cause of shoulder pain and dysfunction. The prevalence of full and partial thickness defects increases linearly with age after 50 years, and by the age of 80 years, they exist in 80% of the population. [1] Patients with similar rotator cuff pathology manifest with varying symptoms and functional limitations. The influence of rotator cuff pathology on glenohumeral kinematics is not well documented in the literature, although several authors have speculated on the wide disparity of functional abilities of patients with grossly similar pathology. [2],[3]

A number of cadaveric studies have examined the effects of rotator cuff pathology on shoulder kinematics. [4],[5],[6],[7] Collectively, these studies suggest that increasing the size of the rotator cuff tear will result in an increased alteration of kinematics. Currently, there is little information available on the effect of rotator cuff tears on active kinematics in-vitro. Kedgley et al. examined the effects of sequential one, two, and three cm rotator cuff tears that were created in the supraspinatus tendon and extended into the subscapularis tendon. [8] The humeral head was displaced posteriorly with progressively larger tears of the rotator cuff during active shoulder elevation. The authors concluded that increasing the size of the rotator cuff tear resulted in greater alterations in glenohumeral kinematics.

The goals of surgical repair of rotator cuff tears are to restore the anatomic relationship between the tendons and their osseous footprints on the humerus. Several different repair techniques have evolved since Codman's description in 1934. [9] Common open and arthroscopic techniques include transosseous suture repair or the use of suture anchors in either a single- or double-row repair configuration. [10],[11] Superiority of one technique over another has not been established.

Several recent studies have examined the biomechanical properties and clinical outcomes of the different repair techniques. Biomechanical studies have found double-row constructs to be stronger than single-row constructs in both cadaveric [7],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18] and animal [19],[20],[21],[22],[23] models. In addition, double-row repairs can restore the tendon footprint more accurately [15],[23],[24],[25] and are associated with higher rates of tendon healing than single-row repairs. [26] It has also been suggested that double-row repairs are preferable for cases with retracted tendons. [13] Despite the biomechanical advantage, clinical studies have failed to show a distinct advantage favoring the double-row repair technique. [26],[27],[28],[29],[30]

In addition to ensuring mechanical integrity of these reconstructions, the resulting glenohumeral joint motion is also important. However, we are unaware of any studies that have examined the effect of different suture anchor repairs on shoulder translations. Hence, the purpose of this study was to determine active glenohumeral kinematics with simulated 2 cm-sized rotator cuff tears. In addition, the ability of single- and double-row suture anchor repair to restore intact glenohumeral kinematics was also compared. We hypothesized that (1) two cm defects in the rotator cuff would have a minor effect on simulated active glenohumeral kinematics and that (2) both single- and double-row suture anchor fixation would restore normal active intact motion.


   Materials and Methods Top


Eight pairs of fresh-frozen cadaveric upper forequarters (mean age: 66 ± 9 years; range: 46-74 years; 5 male) were used. All specimens had no evidence of previous surgery, trauma, glenohumeral arthritis, or rotator cuff tendonopathy. Specimens were thawed to room temperature (mean 23°C (±2°C)) and were kept moist with 0.9% saline throughout testing.

Testing procedure

A shoulder testing simulator that creates active unconstrained glenohumeral elevation was employed. [31] Specimens were prepared by osteotomy of the distal humerus at mid-shaft, exposure of the anterior deltoid, and exposure of the inferior border of the scapula. A 316 stainless-steel rod, with weights added to be equivalent to the intact arm, was cemented into the distal humeral canal. Equivalence between the intact arm and the weighted rod was verified with a spring scale. [31] Each specimen was mounted to the simulator by securing the inferior pole of the scapula into a custom pot with polymethylmethacrylate. Muscle simulation was achieved by suturing pneumatically actuated cables to the tendons of the rotator cuff muscles - supraspinatus, subscapularis, and infraspinatus/teres minor, and attaching three cables to the deltoid tuberosity to simulate the three heads of the deltoid muscle. Forces were applied to the individual cables using a previously described set of loading ratios. [31] These were based upon electromyographic (EMG) data [32] and the relative physiological cross-sectional areas of the muscles. [33] The forces varied according to the angle of elevation of the humerus and were different for each specimen. [31] The relative motion of the humerus with respect to the scapula was collected with an electromagnetic tracking device (Flock of Birds, Ascension Technologies, Burlington, USA). The receivers for the tracking system were fixed to the superior border of the scapula and the rod that replaced the distal humerus.

Passive glenohumeral elevation in the plane of the scapula was conducted to ensure no impingement occurred as a result of fixation. Initial testing was performed with the rotator cuff intact. Small tone loads of between 20N and 30N were applied to the rotator cuff muscles at the start of each cycle of motion. [31] These loads were selected to ensure that the humeral head was centered in the glenoid socket when the motion began. Five trials of both passive and active motions were conducted to allow quantification of repeatability. [31] Elevation was defined as movement in the scapular plane from approximately 0° to 90° of glenohumeral elevation.

The experimental protocol is given in [Figure 1]. Following intact testing, a deltoid splitting technique was used to expose the rotator cuff for creation of a 1 cm (mediolateral) by 2 cm (anteroposterior) defect in the anterior supraspinatus, which began at the rotator interval and propagated posteriorly. One centimeter of the supraspinatus tendon was resected to simulate the clinical scenario of tendon retraction. The deltoid muscle and skin incisions were closed with a running suture prior to recording the simulated active motion of the new torn state. Following testing, one shoulder from each of the eight pairs was randomized to undergo rotator cuff repair using a single-row suture anchor technique, while the contralateral shoulder was repaired using a double-row suture anchor technique. [10] All repairs were performed with 5.5 mm threaded metal anchors double-loaded with #2 high strength suture (Arthrex, Naples, USA). The single row repair was performed by placing one anchor into the midportion of the greater tuberosity footprint. The rotator cuff was repaired with simple sutures placed into the lateral edge of the tendon. The double-row repair was performed by placing one anchor adjacent to the articular margin, and a second anchor was placed at the lateral edge of the greater tuberosity. [10] The medial row was repaired using two mattress sutures, and the lateral row was repaired with two simple sutures. Once the repair was completed, motion trials were repeated.
Figure 1: An overview of the experimental procedure

Click here to view


Outcome variables and statistical analysis

Repeatability of the trials was quantified by using the standard deviation of the five trials at each position. [31] A segment-fixed co-ordinate system was created on each of the scapula and humerus to allow calculation of the glenohumeral joint kinematics. [34] The plane of abduction and the position of the humeral head relative to the fixed scapula were analyzed at every 10° of glenohumeral elevation. The relative motion of the humeral head with respect to the scapula was also quantified.

Statistical analyses were performed using a Friedman Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Ranks. The dependent variables considered were the angle of abduction and the torn or repaired state. Statistically significant differences were defined as P < 0.05.


   Results Top


Within all pairs of intact specimens, no statistically significant side-to-side differences were observed. Therefore, the measurements for the left and right cases were averaged and included in the Friedman Repeated Measures ANOVA as one entity. In addition, no significant differences were found between passive and active intact glenohumeral elevation of the specimens through the range of motion. Statistical analyses were performed at every 10° of elevation, through an arc of 20° to 80° of glenohumeral elevation.

Intact versus defect condition

The plane of elevation exhibited was altered between the intact and the simulated tear states (P = 0.01) [Figure 2]. The 2 cm defect resulted in posterior angulation of the plane of elevation through the arc of abduction. This was greatest at the mid-portion of abduction (40°-60°) with an overall average of 8° posterior shift when compared to the intact kinematic state. The angle of internal-external rotation of the humerus was not affected by the simulated tear [Figure 3]. Similarly, no differences in the position of the humeral head were observed as a result of the simulated defect [Figure 4].
Figure 2: Change in plane of glenohumeral elevation from the intact state as a function of elevation angle for all states. Mean (±1 SD) for all specimens presented for 30° to 80° of elevation

Click here to view
Figure 3: Change in internal‑external rotation angle from the intact state as a function of elevation angle for all states. Mean (±1 SD) for all specimens presented for 30° to 80° of elevation

Click here to view
Figure 4: Change in (a) superior‑inferior and (b) anterior‑posterior position of the humeral head from the intact state as a function of elevation angle for all states. Mean (±1 SD) for all specimens presented for 30° to 80° of elevation

Click here to view


Defect versus repair condition

Once repaired, a significantly different plane of elevation was achieved [Figure 2]. This was true of both the single row suture anchor repair (P < 0.001) and the double-row suture anchor repair ( P = 0.001). In both cases, the plane of elevation was shifted anteriorly by the repair. The internal-external rotation angle and position of the humeral head were not altered by the repair [Figure 3] and [Figure 4].

Intact versus repair condition

Single- and double-row suture anchor repairs were able to restore the intact kinematic state of the glenohumeral joint for 2 cm rotator cuff defects ( P = 0.10) [Figure 2]. Single row suture anchor repair resulted in a slightly anterior angulation of the plane of elevation on average when compared to the intact kinematic state. Double-row suture anchor repair resulted in a similar plane of elevation as that observed in the intact state ( P = 1.00). No differences in the plane of elevation were observed between the two repairs (P = 0.10). Both single- and double-row repairs resulted in increased variability in the change of the internal-external rotation angle of the humerus [Figure 3], but no statistically significant differences were observed. Likewise, the position of the humeral head was not altered as a result of the repairs. The results of all the comparisons are summarized in [Table 1].


   Discussion Top


Over the last decade, arthroscopic shoulder techniques and equipment have improved the ability to perform minimally invasive repairs to the rotator cuff tendons. The literature has demonstrated that single- and double-row repairs are safe and effective. [11],[35] The purpose of this study, unlike prior biomechanical studies that examined the relative strength double-row cuff repair, [13],[14],[16],[17],[18] was to illustrate the kinematic effects of single- and double-row suture anchor repairs of 2 cm supraspinatus tears on simulated active glenohumeral joint kinematics.

The effects of a simulated 2 cm defect in the supraspinatus tendon in this study were similar to the results found previously by Kedgley et al.[8] As theorized, no changes were found in the internal-external rotation of the humerus or the position of the humeral head with elevation, though the 2 cm defect did result in an alteration in the plane of elevation with a mean change of 8° posteriorly. These results would perhaps be expected; however, compensation likely occurs in-vivo with a medium-sized tear such as this. Glenohumeral subluxation was not expected, [8] and did not occur.

Our observations did not demonstrate any significant differences in the plane of elevation between single- and double-row repairs. These findings are in agreement with clinical findings in the literature. Sugaya et al., in a retrospective cohort study, compared the functional and structural outcomes of single-row versus double-row rotator cuff repair. [30] At a follow-up 35 months, no statistically significant differences in clinical outcome could be appreciated between the two different repair techniques. Franceschi et al., in a randomized controlled clinical trial, compared 30 patients who received a single-row repair and 30 patients who received a double-row repair. At two years follow-up, there was no clinically significant difference between the two different repair techniques. [28] In this study, there are a number of possible reasons that may account for the results.

First, all rotator cuff repairs were performed with suture anchors that create focal sites of tendon reattachment to the greater tuberosity. In an in-vitro study, integration of the tendon to the tuberosity does not occur, and restoration of normal force distribution from a pennate muscle across the tendon-bone interface is unlikely. In both repair conditions, the focal sites of tendon reattachment were similar. In-vivo repair studies may be capable of identifying kinematic differences among repair techniques that result in proportionately different rates of healing at the bone-tendon interface.

Second, there was variability in the size of the cadaveric specimens that were tested. A 2 cm defect may behave differently in a small specimen than in a large specimen and may have affected our ability to detect a change following the simulated tears. Simulating tears that are proportional to the size of the specimen rather than based on an absolute dimension may have resulted in more physiologically relevant results, although they should not have influenced the comparison of the repair types. This supports the generalized trend toward more accurate restoration of the intact glenohumeral kinematics was seen in double-row suture anchor repair for a 2 cm defect of the supraspinatus.

Third, rotator cuff pathology is often a chronic and progressive disorder that may occur in conjunction with adaptive changes in adjacent muscles. [3] In contrast, this study examined the kinematics of an acute lesion, and repair of the rotator cuff and may not accurately reflect the more common clinical scenario seen in patients with chronic rotator cuff disease. The primary factors that contribute to shoulder stability remained functional, including the glenohumeral articular structures and capsulolabral complex. In a clinical situation, this would likely not be the case, as some degree of degradation would have occurred throughout the cuff tissue. [36] However, had the specimens already exhibited pathology of the rotator cuff, we would have been unable to compare the repaired and intact states.

Fourth, this study simulated a chronic clinical scenario by creating an acute defect in the rotator cuff to mimic tendon retraction. Shortening the tendon may have inadvertently created the anterior angulation seen in the plane of elevation with our suture anchor repairs. However, there are also theories that a biochemical mediator may cause a damaged rotator cuff to retract. [37] Similarly, the re-attachment of the tendon most likely imposed the observed increased variability in the internal-external rotation angle of the humerus.

Unfortunately, the use of a deltoid split to produce the rotator cuff tear may not represent the same biomechanics, as that which would be observed had an arthroscopic approach been taken. However, no deltoid failures occurred during testing, and a previous study showed very little alteration of glenohumeral kinematics with a 1 cm rotator cuff tear created in the same way. [8]

There are some noteworthy strengths of this study. The paired, randomized, and controlled nature of this study did generate results of significant merit. Furthermore, a unique, validated shoulder simulator capable of simulating active glenohumeral joint motion using a physiologically-based muscle loading protocol was employed.


   Conclusions Top


In summary, a 2 cm defect in the supraspinatus alters the kinematics of the glenohumeral joint by moving the humeral plane of elevation posteriorly. Both single- and double-row repair techniques resulted in restoration of normal kinematics when compared to the intact state. We did not find a significant difference in glenohumeral kinematics between the two repair techniques. Further studies are warranted to ascertain which repairs afford patients optimal functional and clinical results. With an improved understanding of the kinematics of the glenohumeral joint, physicians will be better equipped to treat patients with rotator cuff disease.

 
   References Top

1.Milgrom C, Schaffler M, Gilbert S, van Holsbeeck M. Rotator-cuff changes in asymptomatic adults. The effect of age, hand dominance and gender. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1995;77:296-8.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]    
2.Burkhart SS. Fluoroscopic comparison of kinematic patterns in massive rotator cuff tears. A suspension bridge model. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1992;284:144-52.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]    
3.Kelly BT, Williams RJ, Cordasco FA, Backus SI, Otis JC, Weiland DE, et al. Differential patterns of muscle activation in patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic rotator cuff tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005;14:165-71.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.Mura N, O'Driscoll SW, Zobitz ME, Heers G, Jenkyn TR, Chou SM, et al. The effect of infraspinatus disruption on glenohumeral torque and superior migration of the humeral head: A biomechanical study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2003;12:179-84.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]    
5.Su WR, Budoff JE, Luo ZP. The effect of posterosuperior rotator cuff tears and biceps loading on glenohumeral translation. Arthroscopy 2010;26:578-86.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]    
6.Tétreault P, Levasseur A, Lin JC, de Guise J, Nuño N, Hagemeister N. Passive contribution of the rotator cuff to abduction and joint stability. Surg Radiol Anat 2011;33:767-73.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.Yu J, McGarry MH, Lee YS, Duong LV, Lee TQ. Biomechanical effects of supraspinatus repair on the glenohumeral joint. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005;14:65S-71S.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]    
8.Kedgley AE, Mackenzie GA, Ferreira LM, Johnson JA, Faber KJ. In vitro kinematics of the shoulder following rotator cuff injury. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2007;22:1068-73.  Back to cited text no. 8
[PUBMED]    
9.Codman EA. The shoulder: Rupture of the supraspinatus tendon and other lesions in or about the subacromial bursa. Boston: Thomas Todd Company; 1934.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.Lo IK, Burkhart SS. Double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: Re-establishing the footprint of the rotator cuff. Arthroscopy 2003;19:1035-42.  Back to cited text no. 10
[PUBMED]    
11.Yamaguchi K, Levine WN, Marra G, Galatz LM, Klepps S, Flatow EL. Transitioning to arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: The pros and cons. Instr Course Lect 2003;52:81-92.  Back to cited text no. 11
[PUBMED]    
12.Burkhead WZ Jr, Skedros JG, O'Rourke PJ, Pierce WA, Pitts TC. A novel double-row rotator cuff repair exceeds strengths of conventional repairs. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007;461:106-13.  Back to cited text no. 12
[PUBMED]    
13.Domb BG, Glousman RE, Brooks A, Hansen M, Lee TQ, ElAttrache NS. High-tension double-row footprint repair compared with reduced-tension single-row repair for massive rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008;90 Suppl 4:35-9.  Back to cited text no. 13
[PUBMED]    
14.Ma CB, Comerford L, Wilson J, Puttlitz CM. Biomechanical evaluation of arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs: Double-row compared with single-row fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88:403-10.  Back to cited text no. 14
[PUBMED]    
15.Mazzocca AD, Millett PJ, Guanche CA, Santangelo SA, Arciero RA. Arthroscopic single row versus double-row suture anchor rotator cuff repair. Am J Sports Med 2005;33:1861-8.  Back to cited text no. 15
[PUBMED]    
16.Meier SW, Meier JD. The effect of double-row fixation on initial repair strength in rotator cuff repair: A biomechanical study. Arthroscopy 2006;22:1168-73.  Back to cited text no. 16
[PUBMED]    
17.Smith CD, Alexander S, Hill AM, Huijsmans PE, Bull AM, Amis AA, et al. A biomechanical comparison or single and double-row fixation in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88:2425-31.  Back to cited text no. 17
[PUBMED]    
18.Waltrip RL, Zheng N, Dugas JR, Andrews JR. Rotator cuff repair. A biomechanical comparison of three techniques. Am J Sports Med 2003;31:493-7.  Back to cited text no. 18
[PUBMED]    
19.Barber FA, Herbert MA, Schroeder FA, Aziz-Jacobo J, Mays MM, Rapley JH. Biomechanical advantages of triple-loaded suture anchors compared with double-row rotator cuff repairs. Arthroscopy 2010;26:316-23.  Back to cited text no. 19
[PUBMED]    
20.Baums MH, Buchhorn GH, Gilbert F, Spahn G, Schultz W, Klinger HM. Initial load-to-failure and failure analysis in single- and double-row repair techniques for rotator cuff repair. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2010;130:1193-9.  Back to cited text no. 20
[PUBMED]    
21.Mahar A, Tamborlane J, Oka R, Esch J, Pedowitz RA. Single-row suture anchor repair of the rotator cuff is biomechanically equivalent to double-row repair in a bovine model. Arthroscopy 2007;23:1265-70.  Back to cited text no. 21
[PUBMED]    
22.Milano G, Grasso A, Zarelli D, Deriu L, Cillo M, Fabbriciani C. Comparison between single-row and double-row rotator cuff repair: A biomechanical study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2008;16:75-80.  Back to cited text no. 22
[PUBMED]    
23.Nelson CO, Sileo MJ, Grossman MG, Serra-Hsu F. Single-row modified mason-allen versus double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: A biomechanical and surface area comparison. Arthroscopy 2008;24:941-8.  Back to cited text no. 23
[PUBMED]    
24.Meier SW, Meier JD. Rotator cuff repair: The effect of double-row fixation on three dimensional repair site. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2006;15:691-6.  Back to cited text no. 24
[PUBMED]    
25.Park MC, Pirolo JM, Park CJ, Tibone JE, McGarry MH, Lee TQ. The effect of abduction and rotation on footprint contact for single-row, double-row, and modified double-row rotator cuff repair techniques. Am J Sports Med 2009;37:1599-608.  Back to cited text no. 25
[PUBMED]    
26.Charousset C, Grimberg J, Duranthon LD, Bellaiche L, Petrover D. Can a double-row anchorage technique improve tendon healing in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair?: A prospective, nonrandomized, comparative study of double-row and single-row anchorage techniques with computed tomographic arthrography tendon healing assessment. Am J Sports Med 2007;35:1247-53.  Back to cited text no. 26
[PUBMED]    
27.Burks RT, Crim J, Brown N, Fink B, Greis PE. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing arthroscopic single- and double-row rotator cuff repair: Magnetic resonance imaging and early clinical evaluation. Am J Sports Med 2009;37:674-82.  Back to cited text no. 27
[PUBMED]    
28.Franceschi F, Ruzzini L, Longo UG, Martina FM, Zobel BB, Maffulli N, et al. Equivalent clinical results of arthroscopic single-row and double-row suture anchor repair for rotator cuff tears: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med 2007;35:1254-60.  Back to cited text no. 28
[PUBMED]    
29.Grasso A, Milano G, Salvatore M, Falcone G, Deriu L, Fabbriciani C. Single-row versus double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: A prospective randomized clinical study. Arthroscopy 2009;25:4-12.  Back to cited text no. 29
[PUBMED]    
30.Sugaya H, Maeda K, Matsuki K, Moriishi J. Functional and structural outcome after arthroscopic full-thickness rotator cuff repair: Single-row versus dual-row fixation. Arthroscopy 2005;21:1307-16.  Back to cited text no. 30
[PUBMED]    
31.Kedgley AE, Mackenzie GA, Ferreira LM, Drosdowech DS, King GJ, Faber KJ, et al. The effect of muscle loading on the kinematics of in vitro glenohumeral abduction. J Biomech 2007;40:2953-60.  Back to cited text no. 31
[PUBMED]    
32.Kronberg M, Németh G, Broström LA. Muscle activity and coordination in the normal shoulder. An electromyographic study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990;257:76-85.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.Aluisio FV, Osbahr DC, Speer KP. Analysis of rotator cuff muscles in adult human cadaveric specimens. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 2003;32:124-9.  Back to cited text no. 33
[PUBMED]    
34.Wu G, van der Helm FC, Veeger HE, Makhsous M, Van Roy P, Anglin C, et al. International Society of Biomechanics. ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate systems of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion--Part II: Shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand. J Biomech 2005;38:981-92.  Back to cited text no. 34
[PUBMED]    
35.Severud EL, Ruotolo C, Abbott DD, Nottage WM. All-arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair: A long-term retrospective outcome comparison. Arthroscopy 2003;19:234-8.  Back to cited text no. 35
[PUBMED]    
36.Jenson KL, Williams GR Jr, Russell IJ, Rockwood CA Jr. Rotator cuff tear arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999;81:1312-24.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.Nho SJ, Yadav H, Shindle MK, MacGillivray JD. Rotator cuff degeneration: Etiology and pathogenesis. Am J Sports Med 2007;36:987-93.  Back to cited text no. 37
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article