Biomechanical properties of various rat rotator cuff repair techniques

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 sh...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of biomechanics 2024-12, Vol.177, p.112399, Article 112399
Main Authors: Abozaid, Mohamed, Adam, Elameen, Sarcon, Aida, An, Kai-Nan, Zhao, Chunfeng
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Animal models
Animals
Biological effects
Biological models (mathematics)
Biological properties
Biomechanical Phenomena
Biomechanics
Bone biomechanics
Bone healing
Cadavers
Failure load
Healing
Humerus
Hypothesis testing
Literature reviews
Male
Mechanical properties
Postoperative period
Rat
Rats
Rats, Sprague-Dawley
Repair technique
Rodents
Rotator cuff
Rotator Cuff - physiology
Rotator Cuff - surgery
Rotator Cuff Injuries - physiopathology
Rotator Cuff Injuries - surgery
Statistical analysis
Strength testing
Suture Techniques
Sutures
Tendons
Transosseous tunnels
Wound Healing - physiology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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 
ISSN:0021-9290
1873-2380
1873-2380
DOI:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2024.112399