Mohamed Abozaid, Elameen Adam, Aida Sarcon, Kai-Nan An, Chunfeng Zhao
{"title":"Biomechanical properties of various rat rotator cuff repair techniques","authors":"Mohamed Abozaid, Elameen Adam, Aida Sarcon, Kai-Nan An, Chunfeng Zhao","doi":"10.1016/j.jbiomech.2024.112399","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>While rat models are frequently used to study tendon healing, there is a lack of research comparing various rotator cuff repair methods in this animal model. Determining the most effective method to begin with is pivotal for biological studies focused on healing augmentation. No study to date has shown the superiority of one repair over the other for rotator cuff repair in a rat model. We performed a biomechanic study using a rat model to study the strength of four common grasping techniques. We assessed if the bone tunnel trajectory influenced the early biomechanics of the repair at postoperative day 0 (POD0). Sixty cadaveric rat shoulders were divided equally into 6 groups; 4 groups were allocated for the biomechanical strength testing based on either a (1) modified Mason Allen (MM), (2) modified Kessler loop (MK), (3) horizontal mattress (HM), or a (4) simple interrupted stitch (SS) technique. The remaining 2 groups were used to evaluate two tunneling angles: a transverse tunnel (TT) that was perpendicular to the long humeral axis, or a longitudinal tunnel (LT) that was 30<sup>◦</sup> angle to the humerus. MM had the highest mean failure load, followed by MK, HM, and SS. Pairwise comparison revealed that MM was stronger than SS and HM (P = 0.025 and P = 0.026, respectively), although similar to the MK (P = 0.881). MM was stiffer than MK (P < 0.001), HM (P = 0.008), and SS (P < 0.001). The TT and LT had similar loads to failure and stiffness. Our study suggests that the MM technique provides a stronger and stiffer rotator cuff repair than the others.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15168,"journal":{"name":"Journal of biomechanics","volume":"177 ","pages":"Article 112399"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of biomechanics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021929024004779","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
While rat models are frequently used to study tendon healing, there is a lack of research comparing various rotator cuff repair methods in this animal model. Determining the most effective method to begin with is pivotal for biological studies focused on healing augmentation. No study to date has shown the superiority of one repair over the other for rotator cuff repair in a rat model. We performed a biomechanic study using a rat model to study the strength of four common grasping techniques. We assessed if the bone tunnel trajectory influenced the early biomechanics of the repair at postoperative day 0 (POD0). Sixty cadaveric rat shoulders were divided equally into 6 groups; 4 groups were allocated for the biomechanical strength testing based on either a (1) modified Mason Allen (MM), (2) modified Kessler loop (MK), (3) horizontal mattress (HM), or a (4) simple interrupted stitch (SS) technique. The remaining 2 groups were used to evaluate two tunneling angles: a transverse tunnel (TT) that was perpendicular to the long humeral axis, or a longitudinal tunnel (LT) that was 30◦ angle to the humerus. MM had the highest mean failure load, followed by MK, HM, and SS. Pairwise comparison revealed that MM was stronger than SS and HM (P = 0.025 and P = 0.026, respectively), although similar to the MK (P = 0.881). MM was stiffer than MK (P < 0.001), HM (P = 0.008), and SS (P < 0.001). The TT and LT had similar loads to failure and stiffness. Our study suggests that the MM technique provides a stronger and stiffer rotator cuff repair than the others.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Biomechanics publishes reports of original and substantial findings using the principles of mechanics to explore biological problems. Analytical, as well as experimental papers may be submitted, and the journal accepts original articles, surveys and perspective articles (usually by Editorial invitation only), book reviews and letters to the Editor. The criteria for acceptance of manuscripts include excellence, novelty, significance, clarity, conciseness and interest to the readership.
Papers published in the journal may cover a wide range of topics in biomechanics, including, but not limited to:
-Fundamental Topics - Biomechanics of the musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, and respiratory systems, mechanics of hard and soft tissues, biofluid mechanics, mechanics of prostheses and implant-tissue interfaces, mechanics of cells.
-Cardiovascular and Respiratory Biomechanics - Mechanics of blood-flow, air-flow, mechanics of the soft tissues, flow-tissue or flow-prosthesis interactions.
-Cell Biomechanics - Biomechanic analyses of cells, membranes and sub-cellular structures; the relationship of the mechanical environment to cell and tissue response.
-Dental Biomechanics - Design and analysis of dental tissues and prostheses, mechanics of chewing.
-Functional Tissue Engineering - The role of biomechanical factors in engineered tissue replacements and regenerative medicine.
-Injury Biomechanics - Mechanics of impact and trauma, dynamics of man-machine interaction.
-Molecular Biomechanics - Mechanical analyses of biomolecules.
-Orthopedic Biomechanics - Mechanics of fracture and fracture fixation, mechanics of implants and implant fixation, mechanics of bones and joints, wear of natural and artificial joints.
-Rehabilitation Biomechanics - Analyses of gait, mechanics of prosthetics and orthotics.
-Sports Biomechanics - Mechanical analyses of sports performance.