Metal Punch vs. Drill for Rotator Cuff Anchor Socket Creation; Cadaveric and Clinical Comparisons.

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Pub Date : 2024-11-22 DOI:10.1016/j.jse.2024.09.036
Christopher M Loftis, Mubinah Khaleel, Mathew Resnick, Bree Baker, James L Cook, Clayton W Nuelle, Matthew Smith
{"title":"Metal Punch vs. Drill for Rotator Cuff Anchor Socket Creation; Cadaveric and Clinical Comparisons.","authors":"Christopher M Loftis, Mubinah Khaleel, Mathew Resnick, Bree Baker, James L Cook, Clayton W Nuelle, Matthew Smith","doi":"10.1016/j.jse.2024.09.036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair has been shown to decrease pain and increase function of certain rotator cuff tears. One potential source of pain is the technique used for bone tunnel creation in the humerus prior to suture anchor placement. This study compared the standard metal punch method to a continuous drilling method for tunnel creation prior to subsequent suture anchor placement. Our hypothesis was that the use of a drill would result in less bony trauma and therefore superior resolution of postoperative pain following rotator cuff repair.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Tunnels were created for six cadaveric (age: 50.83±3.25; male n=3; female n=3) shoulder humeri using a 4-anchor construct to mimic transosseous equivalent rotator cuff repair. Following suture fixation, μCT scans were performed for evaluation of peri-tunnel bone architecture. A tensile force was applied to the anchor through the suture material at a constant displacement rate of 1mm/s until ultimate failure of the construct. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (version 25; IBM, Armonk, NY, USA), and significance was set at p≤0.05. A total of 43 subjects between 18 and 80 years old were randomized into the study, with 22 in the drill group and 21 in the punch group. Following surgery, the first 5 patients in each cohort underwent MRI at the 2-week postoperative visit. Pain and other patient reported measures (PROMs) were assessed at all standard of care postoperative visits. Patient demographics and PROMs were assessed for significance within the groups using repeated ANOVA and unpaired t-test. A P-value of <0.05 was set for significance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Preclinical - There were no statistically significant differences (p>0.05) between punched and drilled anchors with respect to peri-socket bone architecture and material properties. Clinical - There were no statistically significant differences (p>0.05) between punch and drill cohorts for assessments of pain, function, or bone marrow lesion size. However, the punch cohort reported statistically significant and clinically meaningful reductions in pain scores at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months compared to preoperative scores (p<0.02), whereas the drill cohort reported statistically significant and clinically meaningful reductions in pain scores at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months after surgery (p <0.05). Similarly, the punch cohort reported statistically significant reductions in PROMIS pain interference scores, which were within 1 standard deviation of the healthy adult control population, at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months compared to preoperative scores (p <0.05), whereas the drill cohort did not report statistically significant improvements in PROMIS PI scores until 3 months postoperatively and were not within 1 standard deviation of the healthy adult control population until 6 months after surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Preclinical and clinical data suggest that it is reasonable to utilize either a punch or drill socket-creation method for suture anchor placement in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, while considering the potential for earlier pain relief associated with the punch method.</p>","PeriodicalId":50051,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2024.09.036","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair has been shown to decrease pain and increase function of certain rotator cuff tears. One potential source of pain is the technique used for bone tunnel creation in the humerus prior to suture anchor placement. This study compared the standard metal punch method to a continuous drilling method for tunnel creation prior to subsequent suture anchor placement. Our hypothesis was that the use of a drill would result in less bony trauma and therefore superior resolution of postoperative pain following rotator cuff repair.

Methods: Tunnels were created for six cadaveric (age: 50.83±3.25; male n=3; female n=3) shoulder humeri using a 4-anchor construct to mimic transosseous equivalent rotator cuff repair. Following suture fixation, μCT scans were performed for evaluation of peri-tunnel bone architecture. A tensile force was applied to the anchor through the suture material at a constant displacement rate of 1mm/s until ultimate failure of the construct. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (version 25; IBM, Armonk, NY, USA), and significance was set at p≤0.05. A total of 43 subjects between 18 and 80 years old were randomized into the study, with 22 in the drill group and 21 in the punch group. Following surgery, the first 5 patients in each cohort underwent MRI at the 2-week postoperative visit. Pain and other patient reported measures (PROMs) were assessed at all standard of care postoperative visits. Patient demographics and PROMs were assessed for significance within the groups using repeated ANOVA and unpaired t-test. A P-value of <0.05 was set for significance.

Results: Preclinical - There were no statistically significant differences (p>0.05) between punched and drilled anchors with respect to peri-socket bone architecture and material properties. Clinical - There were no statistically significant differences (p>0.05) between punch and drill cohorts for assessments of pain, function, or bone marrow lesion size. However, the punch cohort reported statistically significant and clinically meaningful reductions in pain scores at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months compared to preoperative scores (p<0.02), whereas the drill cohort reported statistically significant and clinically meaningful reductions in pain scores at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months after surgery (p <0.05). Similarly, the punch cohort reported statistically significant reductions in PROMIS pain interference scores, which were within 1 standard deviation of the healthy adult control population, at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months compared to preoperative scores (p <0.05), whereas the drill cohort did not report statistically significant improvements in PROMIS PI scores until 3 months postoperatively and were not within 1 standard deviation of the healthy adult control population until 6 months after surgery.

Conclusion: Preclinical and clinical data suggest that it is reasonable to utilize either a punch or drill socket-creation method for suture anchor placement in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, while considering the potential for earlier pain relief associated with the punch method.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用于创建肩袖锚定套筒的金属冲孔器与钻孔器;尸体与临床比较。
背景:关节镜下肩袖修复术已被证明可减轻某些肩袖撕裂的疼痛并增强其功能。疼痛的一个潜在来源是缝合锚放置前在肱骨中创建骨隧道的技术。本研究比较了标准金属冲孔法和连续钻孔法,前者用于在随后的缝合锚放置前创建隧道。我们的假设是,使用钻孔法可以减少骨创伤,从而更好地缓解肩袖修复术后的疼痛:方法: 使用 4 锚点结构为六具尸体(年龄:50.83±3.25;男性 n=3;女性 n=3)的肩肱骨创建隧道,以模拟经骨等效肩袖修复术。缝合固定后,进行μCT扫描以评估隧道周围的骨结构。以 1 毫米/秒的恒定位移速率通过缝合材料向锚点施加拉力,直至结构最终失效。所有统计分析均使用 SPSS(版本 25;IBM,Armonk,NY,USA)进行,显著性设定为 p≤0.05。共有 43 名年龄在 18 至 80 岁之间的受试者被随机纳入研究,其中钻孔组 22 人,打孔组 21 人。手术后,每组的前 5 名患者在术后 2 周进行核磁共振成像检查。在所有标准护理术后访视中对疼痛和其他患者报告指标(PROMs)进行了评估。采用重复方差分析和非配对 t 检验法评估患者人口统计学和 PROMs 在组内的显著性。P值为结果:临床前 - 在牙槽骨周围结构和材料特性方面,打孔锚和钻孔锚之间没有统计学意义上的显著差异(P>0.05)。临床 - 在疼痛、功能或骨髓病变大小的评估方面,打孔锚和钻孔锚之间没有明显的统计学差异(p>0.05)。然而,与术前评分相比,打孔组在2周、6周、3个月和6个月的疼痛评分均有统计学意义和临床意义的降低(p结论:临床前和临床数据表明,在关节镜下肩袖修复术中使用打孔法或钻孔法放置缝合锚是合理的,同时考虑到打孔法有可能更早地缓解疼痛。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
23.30%
发文量
604
审稿时长
11.2 weeks
期刊介绍: The official publication for eight leading specialty organizations, this authoritative journal is the only publication to focus exclusively on medical, surgical, and physical techniques for treating injury/disease of the upper extremity, including the shoulder girdle, arm, and elbow. Clinically oriented and peer-reviewed, the Journal provides an international forum for the exchange of information on new techniques, instruments, and materials. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery features vivid photos, professional illustrations, and explicit diagrams that demonstrate surgical approaches and depict implant devices. Topics covered include fractures, dislocations, diseases and injuries of the rotator cuff, imaging techniques, arthritis, arthroscopy, arthroplasty, and rehabilitation.
期刊最新文献
After primary shoulder arthroplasty appropriate vancomycin antibiotic prophylaxis does not lead to increased infectious complications when compared to cefazolin. Lateralization of the humerus in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: can preoperative planning software predict postoperative lateralization and does lateralization influence outcomes? Pathological formation of subcoracoid bursa effusion on magnetic resonance imaging studies. Pain Relief Survivorship: A Comparison of Exactech Equinoxe Anatomic and Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty for Primary Osteoarthritis. Tyrolean Iceman's arrow injury to the shoulder: New insights into extent and survival time.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1