IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/gcmbxx/v23y2020i16p1387-1394.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of 3 supraspinatus tendon repair techniques – a 3D computational finite element analysis

Author

Listed:
  • C. Quental
  • J. Reis
  • J. Folgado
  • J. Monteiro
  • M. Sarmento

Abstract

Considering that optimal contact area and pressure at the tendon-bone interface are associated with better footprint repair and outcomes, the aim of this study was to compare the performance of standard double-row, transosseous equivalent (TOE), and partial articular supraspinatus tendon avulsion (PASTA) techniques for the treatment of full-thickness tears of the supraspinatus tendon using 3D finite element models. Loading consisted, alternately, in a preloading of 10 N and 20 N of the sutures. The footprint coverage of the standard double-row, TOE, and PASTA techniques was estimated to represent 19%, 30%, and 35%, respectively, of the repair area. The average contact pressures followed an opposite trend, i.e., the largest was estimated for the standard double-row technique, whereas the lowest was estimated for the PASTA technique. Despite the present study advancing the computational modelling of rotator cuff repair, and the results being consistent with the literature, its findings must be evaluated cautiously, bearing in mind its limitations.

Suggested Citation

  • C. Quental & J. Reis & J. Folgado & J. Monteiro & M. Sarmento, 2020. "Comparison of 3 supraspinatus tendon repair techniques – a 3D computational finite element analysis," Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(16), pages 1387-1394, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:gcmbxx:v:23:y:2020:i:16:p:1387-1394
    DOI: 10.1080/10255842.2020.1805441
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/10255842.2020.1805441
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/10255842.2020.1805441?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:gcmbxx:v:23:y:2020:i:16:p:1387-1394. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/gcmb .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.