A Biomechanical Comparison of 2 Transosseous-Equivalent Double-Row Rotator Cuff Repair Techniques Using Bioabsorbable Anchors: Cyclic Loading and Failure Behavior

PurposeA novel double-row configuration was compared with a traditional double-row configuration for rotator cuff repair.MethodsIn 10 matched-pair sheep shoulders in vitro repair was performed with either a double-row technique with corkscrew suture anchors for the medial row and insertion anchors for the lateral row (group A) or a double-row technique with a new tape-like suture material with insertion anchors for both the medial and lateral rows (group B). Each specimen underwent cyclic loading from 10 to 150 N for 100 cycles, followed by unidirectional failure testing. Gap formation and strain within the repair area for the first and last cycles were analyzed with a video digitizing system, and stiffness and failure load were determined from the load-elongation curve.ResultsThe results were similar for the 2 repair types. There was no significant difference between the ultimate failure loads of the 2 techniques (421 ± 150 N in group A and 408 ± 66 N in group B, P = .31) or the stiffness of the 2 techniques (84 ± 26 N/mm in group A and 99 ± 20 N/mm in group B, P = .07). In addition, gap formation was not different between the repair types. Strain over the repair area was also not different between the repair types.ConclusionsBoth tested rotator cuff repair techniques had high failure loads, limited gap formation, and acceptable strain patterns. No significant difference was found between the novel and conventional double-row repair types.Clinical RelevanceTwo double-row techniques—one with corkscrew suture anchors for the medial row and insertion anchors for the lateral row and one with insertion anchors for both the medial and lateral rows—provided excellent biomechanical profiles at time 0 for double-row repairs in a sheep model. Although the sheep model may not directly correspond to in vivo conditions, all–insertion anchor double-row constructs are worthy of further investigation.