Intraosseous Suture Abrasion according to the Angle of the Transosseous Tunnel in Rotator Cuff Footprint

Resumen

Objetivo Comparar el desgaste óseo generado por la abrasión de una carga cíclica entre túneles clásicos oblicuos y perpendiculares. Nuestra hipótesis es la de que el túnel oblicuo presenta un menor desgaste óseo por abrasión cíclica comparado con el túnel perpendicular.

Métodos Ocho hombros congelados de cordero fueron usados para el estudio biomecánico. En cada húmero proximal, dos túneles (oblicuo y perpendicular) fueron generados en la tuberosidad mayor. Se utilizó un sistema de tracción cíclica para traccionar hacia atrás y adelante una sutura trenzada en tensión a través del túnel, midiendo la distancia entre la entrada y la salida de la sutura en el túnel antes y después del proceso de ciclado como medida de perdida de tensión de la sutura. El resultado principal es el cambio de la distancia entre la entrada y la salida de la sutura en el túnel después del ciclado para estimar el desgaste óseo dentro del túnel. Para el análisis estadístico, se utilizó la prueba U de Mann-Whitney. Se consideraron significativos valores de p < 0,05.

Resultados Los túneles perpendiculares tuvieron un 23,24 ±  7,44% de pérdida de longitud, y los túneles oblicuos, 7,76 ±  4,32%. La diferencia de pérdida de longitud fue significativa (p = 0,0003).

Conclusión La abrasión ósea generada por el movimiento cíclico de la sutura en el túnel transóseo está influenciada por la geometría del túnel. El desgaste óseo es menor en un túnel oblicuo comparado con un túnel perpendicular.

Nivel de Evidencia Estudio de ciencia básica.

Abstract

Objective To compare the bone wear generated by the abrasion of a cyclic load between classic oblique and perpendicular tunnels. Our hypothesis is that the oblique tunnel is submitted to less cyclic abrasion bone wear compared with the perpendicular tunnel.

Methods Eight fresh-frozen lamb shoulders were used for biomechanical testing. In each proximal humerus, two tunnels (one oblique and one perpendicular) were drilled at the greater tuberosity. We used a cyclic traction system to pull back and forth a braided suture under tension through the tunnel, measuring the distance between the entry and exit points of the suture within the tunnel before and after the cyclic process to release the tension in the suture. The main outcome was the percentage of change in the distance between the entry and exit points of the suture within the tunnel before and after cyclic abrasion to estimate the degree of bone wear inside the tunnel. For the statistical analysis, the Mann-Whitney U test was used. Values of p < 0.05 were considered significant.

Results The perpendicular bone tunnels had 23.24 ±  7.44% decrease in length, and the oblique bone tunnels, 7.76 ±  4.32%. The difference in the decrease in length was significant (p = 0.0003).

Conclusion The bone abrasion caused by the cyclical movement of the suture in the bone tunnel was influenced by the shape of the tunnel. Bone wear was lower with an oblique tunnel compared with a perpendicular tunnel.

Level of Evidence Basic Science Study.

Keywords

rotator cuff - suture - suture techniques - tendon injuries - tendons - bone tunnel wear - suture abrasion - cyclic abrasion

Introduction

Rotator cuff tears are a very common cause of pain and deficit in shoulder function.[1] Their estimated prevalence is of 20.7% in the general population, and it increases with age.[1] [2] Repair of rotator cuff tears relieves pain and improves function.[3]

Ideally, the repair must have sufficient compressive force to minimize separation and maintain mechanical stability until healing is complete.[4] This is why the repair should also be able to withstand a cyclic physiological load.[5]

The most common treatment for a rotator cuff tear is reattachment with anchors, either in an open or arthroscopic procedure, with adequate functional outcomes;[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] however, the rate of repair failure remains high.[12] [13] [14] The most important clinical factors influencing the healing process are tear size, the degree of fatty degeneration of the muscles, tissue quality, and age.[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] Many biomechanical factors contribute to the healing process and prevent repair failure. These factors include the contact area and contact pressure of the tendon on the footprint,[19] and the tension of the moving suture at the tendon-footprint interface.[20]

Anchor repair systems are widely used, but often fail to fixate in osteoporotic bone, resulting in decreased contact pressure on the footprint.[21] New repair methods have been developed with classic transosseous suture techniques to reduce the rerupture[22] and anchor avulsion rates, decrease the costs,[23] [24] [25] and improve tendon healing.[26] [27]

Transosseous fixation techniques can be performed arthroscopically or in an open procedure, and their efficiency in rotator cuff repair has been proven.[28] For the classic open technique, the transosseous tunnel is performed with large oblique needles;[29] this method has been reproduced arthroscopically.[30] However, the most popular systems are based on arthroscopic techniques that create perpendicular transosseous tunnels, intersecting a medial tunnel in the footprint with another one 1.5 cm below the tip of the tuberosity.[31] The passage of a suture through the bone adds a failure zone due to cyclic load abrasion that must be considered.[5]

Abrasion on cancellous and cortical bone may change during cyclic loading according to the shape of the transosseous tunnel. The present biomechanical study aims to compare the bone wear generated by the abrasion of a cyclic load in classic oblique and perpendicular tunnels. Our hypothesis is that the oblique tunnel presents less bone wear due to cyclic abrasion compared to the perpendicular tunnel.

Materials and Methods

Animal Model

Eight lamb (Ovis orientalis aries) shoulders were thawed at room temperature and dissected for biomechanical tests. All the soft tissue around the proximal humerus was removed to identify the greater tuberosity. No rotator cuff abnormalities were found in any specimen. All pieces were irrigated with saline solution to prevent tissue dehydration. There was no live animal processing; all specimens were sourced from an animal-handling company (Simunovic Ltda.).

Tunnel Design

Two tunnels with 2.5 mm in diameter were made at the greater tuberosity, 10 mm apart from each other. Compasses designed to make perpendicular and oblique tunnels (with a 15-mm radius) were used in each specimen. For both tunnels, the entrance was 10 mm lateral to the edge of the tuberosity, and the exit, 10 mm medial to the edge of the tuberosity, corresponding to the medial area of the infraspinatus footprint in lambs ([Figure 1]).

Fig. 1 Tunnel design. On the left, a perpendicular tunnel; on the right, an oblique (classic) tunnel. Compasses designed to make perpendicular and oblique tunnels (with a 15-mm radius) were used in each specimen. For both tunnels, the entrance was 10 mm lateral to the edge of the tuberosity, and the exit, 10 mm medial to the edge of the tuberosity.

Cyclic Micro-abrasion Model

A custom-made cycling motor that enabled back-and-forth suture traction at a frequency of 2.5 Hz, with 5 cm of excursion (speed of 150 cm/minute), and a 10-N load was used ([Figure 2]). These parameters were described in similar studies,[32] [33] and they simulate physiological loads in daily living activities. The suture traction axis was 90° in relation to the bone surface of the transosseous tunnel ([Fig. 3]).

Fig. 2 Custom-made cyclic abrasion model. A custom-made cycling motor was used for back-and-forth suture traction. The proximal humerus was fixed with a clamp, and the perpendicularity of the suture was ensured at the time of testing.

Fig. 3 Greater tuberosity dissection and tunnel preparation. This figure shows that all the soft tissue around the proximal humerus was removed to identify the greater tuberosity and prepare the tunnels.

The abrasion test was performed with a polyethylene central core suture covered with multiple high-molecular-weight braided strands (USP No. 2; FiberWire, Arthrex, Naples, FL, US). The distance between the entry and exit points of the suture in the tunnel was measured before and after 1,400 cycles with a digital caliper (with 0.1 cm of resolution). The diameter of the cortical bone hole was not measured.

Main Outcome

The main outcome was the percentual change in suture length within oblique and perpendicular tunnels before and after the micro-abrasion cycle as an estimate of the degree of bone tunnel wear.

Statistical Analysis

Due to the small sample size, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was performed for the statistical analysis. All data were analyzed using the STATA (StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX, US) software, version16. Statistical significance was established at p < 0.05 with two-tailed tests.

Results

The perpendicular tunnels had a precycling length of 1.93 ±  0.17 cm, and a postcycling length of 1.48 ±  0.22 cm (23.24 ±  7.44% decrease in length). The oblique tunnels had a precycling length of 1.83 ±  0.15 cm, and a postcycling length of 1.69 ±  0.14 cm (7.76 ±  4.32% decrease in length) ([Table 1]). The difference between the decrease in length of oblique and perpendicular tunnels was significant (p = 0.0003).

Table 1

Angle of the tunnel
Perpendicular	Preabrasion (cm)	Postabrasion (cm)	∆ Abrasion	Percentage
	2.2	1.8	0.4	18.2%
	1.8	1.3	0.5	27.8%
	2	1.4	0.6	30.0%
	1.9	1.65	0.25	13.2%
	2.1	1.6	0.5	23.8%
	1.9	1.5	0.4	21.1%
	1.8	1.5	0.3	16.7%
	1.7	1.1	0.6	35.3%
Mean value	1.93	1.48	0.44	23.24%
Standard deviation	0.17	0.22	0.13	7.44
Oblique	Preabrasion (cm)	Postabrasion (cm)	∆ Abrasion	Percentage
	1.6	1.5	0.1	6.3%
	1.85	1.7	0.15	8.1%
	1.9	1.8	0.1	5.3%
	1.9	1.6	0.3	15.8%
	1.6	1.5	0.1	6.3%
	1.9	1.8	0.1	5.3%
	1.9	1.85	0.05	2.6%
	2	1.75	0.25	12.5%
Mean value	1.83	1.69	0.14	7.76
Standard deviation	0.15	0.14	0.09	4.32

Discussion

Our main finding is that the length of the intraosseous tunnel decreases after cycling as a result of cancellous bone wear caused by suture movement. This wear was three-fold lower in oblique tunnels compared to perpendicular tunnels.

Rotator cuff repair requires an adequate initial fixation force, with minimal loss of footprint contact until healing is complete.[4] [34] Moreover, the repair must withstand a cyclic load over time.[5] The factors contributing to the repair include adequate tissue quality, contact area and contact pressure,[19] and the movement of the tendon-footprint interface.[20] Several studies[35] [36] [37] [38] have shown that the pressure at the tendon-footprint interface, determined as suture tension, is beneficial for healing. Although the optimal pressure for rotator cuff repair has not been established, its clinical impact in different models is uncertain.[19] [27] [39]

Several biomechanical studies show that repairs using transosseous techniques result in excellent pressure at the level of the footprint,[26] [27] greater resistance to failure, and less movement of the tendon-footprint interface compared to techniques based on anchors.[20] [40] Selected clinical series[22] have shown low rates of rerupture (6%) when using transosseous techniques.

Arthroscopic repair attempts to replicate open techniques, including the transosseous technique with different anchor configurations. The transition from open transosseous techniques to arthroscopic techniques is not easy because of the complexity of the preparation of the transosseous tunnel. A direct lateral tunnel can be made with an exit at the medial footprint, but the proximity of the entry point to the axillary nerve is a challenge;[41] an oblique needle may be used to spare this area, but planning the exit at the footprint level is difficult.[30] This is why the most widespread technique is based on a mechanical system that manages to intersect perpendicular tunnels pointing to the required footprint area.[23] [42]

The clinical practice witnessed a transition from monofilament or braided polyester sutures to braided, mixed (polyblend) sutures. Kowalsky et al.[5] studied the abrasive properties of different types of sutures on tendon and bone, showing that they do not influence bone wear. However, further studies are required to determine the actual impact of suture type and abrasion on bone tunnel models.

The present study evaluated biomechanical properties related to cyclic abrasion of a bone tunnel in an animal model. The lamb shoulder was selected because it has anatomical and functional characteristics equivalent to those of the human supraspinatus tendon.[43] However, it remains to be determined whether interspecies differences may affect rotator cuff repair in humans. The present study has many limitations. The effect of intraosseous abrasion aims to evaluate the isolated effect of the angle of the transosseous tunnel with a traction vector of 90° to the bone surface; however, in an ideal model, a simulated rotator cuff tear would be submitted to a transosseous repair followed by cyclic traction on the relevant tendon. The bone density of the ovine proximal humerus is different when compared to that of middle-aged human beings, so interspecies variability cannot be ruled out. Human cadavers may better represent the clinical outcome; however, ex vivo studies provide no information on healing.

Finally, we conclude that the intraosseous abrasion generated by the cyclic suture movement in a transosseous tunnel is influenced by the shape of the tunnel (angle). Bone wear is lower in oblique tunnels compared to perpendicular tunnels.

Acknowledgments

To our family, for the constant support for our research work.

• Referencias

• 1 Reilly P, Macleod I, Macfarlane R, Windley J, Emery RJ. Dead men and radiologists don't lie: a review of cadaveric and radiological studies of rotator cuff tear prevalence. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2006; 88 (02) 116-121
• 2 Yamamoto A, Takagishi K, Osawa T. et al. Prevalence and risk factors of a rotator cuff tear in the general population. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2010; 19 (01) 116-120
• 3 Vaishnav S, Millett PJ. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: scientific rationale, surgical technique, and early clinical and functional results of a knotless self-reinforcing double-row rotator cuff repair system. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2010; 19 (2, Suppl): 83-90
• 4 Gerber C, Schneeberger AG, Beck M, Schlegel U. Mechanical strength of repairs of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1994; 76 (03) 371-380
• 5 Kowalsky MS, Dellenbaugh SG, Erlichman DB, Gardner TR, Levine WN, Ahmad CS. Evaluation of suture abrasion against rotator cuff tendon and proximal humerus bone. Arthroscopy 2008; 24 (03) 329-334
• 6 Gartsman GM, Khan M, Hammerman SM. Arthroscopic repair of full-thickness tears of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1998; 80 (06) 832-840
• 7 Burkhart SS, Danaceau SM, Pearce Jr CE. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: Analysis of results by tear size and by repair technique-margin convergence versus direct tendon-to-bone repair. Arthroscopy 2001; 17 (09) 905-912
• 8 Murray Jr TF, Lajtai G, Mileski RM, Snyder SJ. Arthroscopic repair of medium to large full-thickness rotator cuff tears: outcome at 2- to 6-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2002; 11 (01) 19-24
• 9 Flurin P-H, Landreau P, Gregory T. et al. Cuff Integrity After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: Correlation With Clinical Results in 576 Cases. Arthroscopy 2007; 23 (04) 340-346
• 10 Sugaya H, Maeda K, Matsuki K, Moriishi J. Repair integrity and functional outcome after arthroscopic double-row rotator cuff repair. A prospective outcome study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (05) 953-960
• 11 Wolf EM, Pennington WT, Agrawal V. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: 4- to 10-year results. Arthroscopy 2004; 20 (01) 5-12
• 12 Galatz LM, Ball CM, Teefey SA, Middleton WD, Yamaguchi K. The outcome and repair integrity of completely arthroscopically repaired large and massive rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86 (02) 219-224
• 13 Boileau P, Brassart N, Watkinson DJ, Carles M, Hatzidakis AM, Krishnan SG. Arthroscopic repair of full-thickness tears of the supraspinatus: does the tendon really heal?. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87 (06) 1229-1240
• 14 Bishop J, Klepps S, Lo IK, Bird J, Gladstone JN, Flatow EL. Cuff integrity after arthroscopic versus open rotator cuff repair: a prospective study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2006; 15 (03) 290-299
• 15 Ellman H, Hanker G, Bayer M. Repair of the rotator cuff. End-result study of factors influencing reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1986; 68 (08) 1136-1144
• 16 Iannotti JP, Bernot MP, Kuhlman JR, Kelley MJ, Williams GR. Postoperative assessment of shoulder function: a prospective study of full-thickness rotator cuff tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1996; 5 (06) 449-457
• 17 Goutallier D, Postel JM, Gleyze P, Leguilloux P, Van Driessche S. Influence of cuff muscle fatty degeneration on anatomic and functional outcomes after simple suture of full-thickness tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2003; 12 (06) 550-554
• 18 Lafosse L, Brozska R, Toussaint B, Gobezie R. The outcome and structural integrity of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with use of the double-row suture anchor technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (07) 1533-1541
• 19 Park MC, ElAttrache NS, Tibone JE, Ahmad CS, Jun BJ, Lee TQ. Part I: Footprint contact characteristics for a transosseous-equivalent rotator cuff repair technique compared with a double-row repair technique. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2007; 16 (04) 461-468
• 20 Ahmad CS, Stewart AM, Izquierdo R, Bigliani LU. Tendon-bone interface motion in transosseous suture and suture anchor rotator cuff repair techniques. Am J Sports Med 2005; 33 (11) 1667-1671
• 21 Apreleva M, Özbaydar M, Fitzgibbons PG, Warner JJP. Rotator cuff tears: the effect of the reconstruction method on three-dimensional repair site area. Arthroscopy 2002; 18 (05) 519-526
• 22 Kuroda S, Ishige N, Mikasa M. Advantages of arthroscopic transosseous suture repair of the rotator cuff without the use of anchors. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471 (11) 3514-3522
• 23 Black EM, Austin LS, Narzikul A, Seidl AJ, Martens K, Lazarus MD. Comparison of implant cost and surgical time in arthroscopic transosseous and transosseous equivalent rotator cuff repair. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2016; 25 (09) 1449-1456
• 24 Garofalo R, Castagna A, Borroni M, Krishnan SG. Arthroscopic transosseous (anchorless) rotator cuff repair. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2012; 20 (06) 1031-1035
• 25 Seidl AJ, Lombardi NJ, Lazarus MD. et al. Arthroscopic Transosseous and Transosseous-Equivalent Rotator Cuff Repair: An Analysis of Cost, Operative Time, and Clinical Outcomes. Am J Orthop 2016; 45 (07) E415-E420
• 26 Kummer FJ, Hahn M, Day M, Meislin RJ, Jazrawi LM. A laboratory comparison of a new arthroscopic transosseous rotator cuff repair to a double row transosseous equivalent rotator cuff repair using suture anchors. Bull Hosp Jt Dis (2013) 2013; 71 (02) 128-131
• 27 Park MC, Cadet ER, Levine WN, Bigliani LU, Ahmad CS. Tendon-to-bone pressure distributions at a repaired rotator cuff footprint using transosseous suture and suture anchor fixation techniques. Am J Sports Med 2005; 33 (08) 1154-1159
• 28 Tauber M, Koller H, Resch H. Transosseous arthroscopic repair of partial articular-surface supraspinatus tendon tears. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2008; 16 (06) 608-613
• 29 Yamaguchi K, Levine WN, Marra G, Galatz LM, Klepps S, Flatow EL. Transitioning to arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: the pros and cons. Instr Course Lect 2003; 52: 81-92
• 30 Fleega BA. Arthroscopic transhumeral rotator cuff repair: Giant needle technique. Arthroscopy 2002; 18 (02) 218-223
• 31 Black EM, Lin A, Srikumaran U, Jain N, Freehill MT. Arthroscopic transosseous rotator cuff repair: technical note, outcomes, and complications. Orthopedics 2015; 38 (05) e352-e358
• 32 Mahar AT, Moezzi DM, Serra-Hsu F, Pedowitz RA. Comparison and performance characteristics of 3 different knots when tied with 2 suture materials used for shoulder arthroscopy. Arthroscopy 2006; 22 (06) 614.e1-614.e2
• 33 Wüst DM, Meyer DC, Favre P, Gerber C. Mechanical and handling properties of braided polyblend polyethylene sutures in comparison to braided polyester and monofilament polydioxanone sutures. Arthroscopy 2006; 22 (11) 1146-1153
• 34 Rossouw DJ, McElroy BJ, Amis AA, Emery RJH. A biomechanical evaluation of suture anchors in repair of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1997; 79 (03) 458-461
• 35 Goradia VK, Rochat MC, Kida M, Grana WA. Natural history of a hamstring tendon autograft used for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in a sheep model. Am J Sports Med 2000; 28 (01) 40-46
• 36 Pinczewski LA, Clingeleffer AJ, Otto DD, Bonar SF, Corry IS. Integration of hamstring tendon graft with bone in reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. Arthroscopy 1997; 13 (05) 641-643
• 37 Rodeo SA, Arnoczky SP, Torzilli PA, Hidaka C, Warren RF. Tendon-healing in a bone tunnel. A biomechanical and histological study in the dog. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1993; 75 (12) 1795-1803
• 38 Weiler A, Peine R, Pashmineh-Azar A, Abel C, Südkamp NP, Hoffmann RFG. Tendon healing in a bone tunnel. Part I: Biomechanical results after biodegradable interference fit fixation in a model of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in sheep. Arthroscopy 2002; 18 (02) 113-123
• 39 Baums MH, Spahn G, Steckel H, Fischer A, Schultz W, Klinger H-M. Comparative evaluation of the tendon-bone interface contact pressure in different single- versus double-row suture anchor repair techniques. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2009; 17 (12) 1466-1472
• 40 Lee TQ. Current biomechanical concepts for rotator cuff repair. Clin Orthop Surg 2013; 5 (02) 89-97
• 41 Gupta H, Mishra P, Kataria H. et al. Optimal Angle of the Bone Tunnel for Avoiding Axillary Nerve Injuries During Arthroscopic Transosseous Rotator Cuff Repair: A Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Simulation Study. Orthop J Sports Med 2018; 6 (11) 2325967118806295
• 42 Bronsnick D, Pastor A, Peresada D, Amirouche F, Solitro GF, Goldberg BA. Is Arthroscopic Transosseous Rotator Cuff Repair Strength Dependent on the Tunnel Angle?. Orthop J Sports Med 2019; 7 (06) 2325967119848667
• 43 Andres BM, Lam PH, Murrell GA. Tension, abduction, and surgical technique affect footprint compression after rotator cuff repair in an ovine model. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2010; 19 (07) 1018-1027

Publication History

Received: 28 August 2020

Accepted: 06 August 2021

Article published online:
22 December 2021