A biomechanical comparison of repair techniques in posterior type II superior labral anterior and posterior (SLAP) lesions

31Citations
Citations of this article
33Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the 3 different fixation methods of posterior type superior labral anterior posterior (SLAP) II lesion. Fifteen cadavers were randomly divided into 3 groups to compare the initial strength of 3 different fixation methods in posterior type II SLAP lesions. Group I used 1 anchor for 1-point fixation with a conventional simple suture; group II used 1 anchor passing both limbs through the posterior-superior labrum in a mattress fashion; and group III used 2 anchors for 2-point fixation with conventional simple sutures. Repair failure (2 mm permanent displacement of repaired site) and ultimate failure were measured. The mean load to (clinical) failure was 156 ± 22 N in group I, 117 ± 33 N in group II, and 161 ± 44 N in group III. The mean load to ultimate failure was 198 ± 6 N in group I, 189 ± 23 N in group II, and 179 ± 22 N in group III. The specimen stiffness was equivalent among groups. In mode of failure, clinical failure (more than 2 mm separations) first occurred between the markers on the biceps tendon just above (A) and below (B) compared to other markers, and ultimate failure occurred at the labral-implant interface. A single simple suture anchor repair in posterior type II SLAP seems sufficient to withstand the initial load without clinical failure. A mattress suture, although it anchors the biceps root, seems to be inferior than simple suture technique. © 2008 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Yoo, J. C., Ahn, J. H., Lee, S. H., Lim, H. C., Choi, K. W., Bae, T. S., & Lee, C. Y. (2008). A biomechanical comparison of repair techniques in posterior type II superior labral anterior and posterior (SLAP) lesions. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 17(1), 144–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2007.03.025

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free