RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Rotator cuff tendinopathy is a frequent cause of shoulder pain that can lead to decreased strength and range of motion. Failures after using the single-row technique of rotator cuff repair have led to the development of the double-row technique, which is said to allow for more anatomical restoration of the footprint. PURPOSE: To compare 5 different types of suture patterns while maintaining equality in number of anchors. The hypothesis was that the Mason-Allen-crossed cruciform transosseous-equivalent technique is superior to other suture configurations while maintaining equality in suture limbs and anchors. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: A total of 25 fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were randomized into 5 suture configuration groups: single-row repair with simple stitch technique; single-row repair with modified Mason-Allen technique; double-row Mason-Allen technique; double-row cross-bridge technique; and double-row suture bridge technique. Load and displacement were recorded at 100 Hz until failure. Stiffness and bone mineral density were also measured. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in peak load at failure, stiffness, maximum displacement at failure, or mean bone mineral density among the 5 suture configuration groups (P < .05). CONCLUSION: According to study results, when choosing a repair technique, other factors such as number of sutures in the repair should be considered to judge the strength of the repair. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Previous in vitro studies have shown the double-row rotator cuff repair to be superior to the single-row repair; however, clinical research does not necessarily support this. This study found no difference when comparing 5 different repair methods, supporting research that suggests the number of sutures and not the pattern can affect biomechanical properties.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The complications associated with misdiagnosed or undertreated femoral neck stress fractures in young, active adults have been well documented in the orthopaedic literature. Less is known regarding the outcome of these injuries in patients whose diagnosis was timely and whose treatment was appropriate. METHODS: A sample of 25 patients previously involved in an unrelated study evaluating femoral neck stress fractures were contacted retrospectively 5 to 7 years after their injury. They were asked to complete a self-administered outcome evaluation, the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (MFA), and answer several specific questions regarding their hips at the present time. Their MFA score was compared with treatment method, fracture type, and bone mineral density (BMD). RESULTS: All 25 patients responded to our inquiries. Of patients, 68% continued to feel "somewhat bothered" by their injury in at least one functional category. Nine patients felt "disabled." No patient has developed avascular necrosis, nonunion, malunion, or posttraumatic arthrosis or was currently under the care of an orthopaedic surgeon. Nine patients had developed stress fractures in other locations. The mean MFA score was 18.80 (range 0 to 63). A lower score corresponds to a patient's perceived higher level of function. Analysis of MFA scores did not reflect statistically significant differences between fracture location, treatment modality, or BMD. CONCLUSIONS: Femoral neck stress fractures can result in devastating problems for young adults. Appropriately treated patients, regardless of treatment method, may have persistent complaints.