Failure Analysis of Rotator Cuff Repair: A Comparison of Three Double-Row Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of suture anchors has made arthroscopic repair of the torn rotator cuff possible. However, objective evaluations have demonstrated high failure rates. The goal of this study was to compare the modes and rates of failure of two double-row arthroscopic repair techniques and the mini-open double-row technique. METHODS: Thirty pairs of fresh-frozen human shoulders were used in this study. The specimens were prepared to simulate a cuff defect, which was then repaired. The repairs were done with three different lateral row techniques (Mason-Allen sutures passed through transosseous tunnels, the knotless anchor method, and the corkscrew suture anchor method) with the same medial row technique (corkscrew suture anchors). Cyclic tests were conducted at 33 mm/s with a cyclic force of 10 to 180 N. Specimens were cycled to 5000 cycles or to failure as defined as formation of a 10-mm gap at the repair. Failure rates and failure modes of the suture, tendon, and bone-anchor interface were compared for the medial and lateral rows and among the three techniques. RESULTS: Fourteen of the twenty repairs made with the transosseous technique, fifteen of the twenty repairs made with the knotless anchor technique, and ten of the twenty repairs made with the corkscrew anchor technique survived 5000 cycles. The failure rates for the medial row were not significantly different among the three repair techniques. For the lateral row, there was a significant difference (p < 0.01) in the rate of failure among individual transosseous tunnel-suture complexes (32%), knotless anchor-suture complexes (48%), and corkscrew anchor-suture complexes (75%), with a similar suture-tendon failure rate for all three techniques. The tendon and repair complexes with corkscrew suture anchors had the smallest displacement both at the first and the 5000th cycle. CONCLUSIONS: Although repairs made with the anchor techniques had higher individual failure rates, the survival rates for the anchor techniques at the 5000th cycle were similar to that for the transosseous technique during cyclic tests. Suture failure was the main failure mode for the transosseous technique, whereas failure at the anchor-bone interface was the main failure mode for the anchor techniques.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".