arthroscopic transosseous(no implant) rotator cuff repair-dr. raghuveer reddy .k
TRANSCRIPT
ARTHROSCOPIC TRANSOSSEOUS
(No implant) ROTATOR CUFF REPAIR
Sai Institute of Sports Injury & Arthroscopy Shoulder & Knee Specialty Centre, Hyderabad
Dr. Raghuveer Reddy. K
IAS 2014
I am Thankful to Dr. Sumant G. Krishnan
for providing with Biomechanical work
& Clinical outcome statistics of his
study done in U.S.
History
Cycle of Rotator Cuff Repair
Open Transosseous
Mini-Open Transosseous
Mini-Open with Anchors
Arthroscopic with Anchors
SR vs DR vsTOE
Arthroscopic Transosseous
The Perfect RCR
Large Contact Area
High Initial Fixation Strength
Stable Construct
Biology
High Contact Pressure
Low Tension Repair
Mechanical fixation Biological healing
Suture strength
Multiple sutures
Suture configuration
Suture anchors
Transosseous Equivalent
Transosseous Repair
Prepare bone foot print
? Acromioplasty??
• Collagen coated suture
Growth Factors ( PRP)
Stem Cells
ECM Grafts
Biologic Scaffolds
Graft Jacket
Cuff Healing - Stimulation
Cyclic Testing
Tunnel: Bone Failure
Anchors: Tendon Failure
Burkhart et al Arthroscopy 1997
Design Arthrotunneller
Arthroscopic Transosseous RCRHISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Fleega 2002
“Giant Needle”
Krishnan 2002
All-Arthroscopic
Transosseous
Lu 2005
ACL Guide
Beauchamp 2007
Curved passers
Resch 2009
Curved hollow needle
Castagna 2012
Taylor Stitch
Kuroda 2013
Customized drill guide
ATRCRThe Surgical Technique
ARTHROSCOPIC TRANSOSSEOUS (ANCHORLESS) ROTATOR CUFF REPAIR
ARTHROSCOPIC TRANSOSSEOUS (ANCHORLESS) ROTATOR CUFF REPAIR
Surgical Technique –
Any suture configuration possible
Simple (medial)
Mattress (ant/post)
Bridges
ARTHROSCOPIC TRANSOSSEOUS (ANCHORLESS) ROTATOR CUFF REPAIR
Single Tunnel
ARTHROSCOPIC TRANSOSSEOUS (ANCHORLESS) ROTATOR CUFF REPAIR
Two Tunnel
ATRCRThe Science
BIOMECHANICAL EVALUATION
Ideal Rotator Cuff Repair
● High initial fixation strength
● Minimal gap formation
● Mechanical stability till tendon bone healing
Gerber JBJS (Br) 1994
Sugaya JBJS 2007
Arthroscopic Transosseous RCRREVISITING HISTORY
● Burkhart et al. - Arthroscopy, 2000
● Barber et al. - Arthroscopy, 2010
● Jost et al. - JBJS, 2012
“Increasing the number of sutures crossing the repair
site increases the load to failure and decreases gap
formation under cyclic loading”
ATRCRThe Outcomes of
Our Prospective Clinical Study &
Sumant’s Randomized Study
My Experience
PROSPECTIVE CLINICAL STUDY
Material 2013 - 14 20 cases
Our Prospective Clinical Study
Primary 18, Revision 2
Posterior superior tears 14, Superior 6 tears
Single tunnel 11Pts. Simple Suture
Two tunnel 9Pts. Mattress Suture
10 Cases evaluated. 6 - 12 months follow up
Functional evaluation (VAS, ASES)One pt. Had ASES < 70
MRI Evaluation – Sugaya criteria for cuff healing5 pts. Type I Three pts , Type II Two pts
MRI evaluation using Sugaya
Criteria for Cuff Healing Arthroscopy 2005
Type I: Sufficient thickness with homogeneously low intensity
Type II: Sufficient thickness with partial high intensity
Type III: Insufficient thickness without discontinuity
Type IV: Presence of a minor discontinuity
Type V: Presence of a major discontinuity
Case 1 Post op MRI
Type I: Sufficient thickness with homogeneously low intensity
Type II: Sufficient thickness with partial high intensity
Type III: Insufficient thickness without discontinuity
Type IV: Presence of a minor discontinuity
Type V: Presence of a major discontinuity
Case 2 Post op MRI
Type I: Sufficient thickness with homogeneously low intensity
Type II: Sufficient thickness with partial high intensity
Type III: Insufficient thickness without discontinuity
Type IV: Presence of a minor discontinuity
Type V: Presence of a major discontinuity
Case 3 Post op MRI
Type I: Sufficient thickness with homogeneously low intensity
Type II: Sufficient thickness with partial high intensity
Type III: Insufficient thickness without discontinuity
Type IV: Presence of a minor discontinuity
Type V: Presence of a major discontinuity
Posterosuperior rotator cuff tear amenableto GT footprint repair without tension (L , Crescent, reverse L)
• No subscapularis tendon involvement
• Grade I, II, III (Goutallier) FI
• One single surgeon
• Prospective Randomized allocation
• MRI evaluation at 1 year postop from 3 independent radiologists using SugayaCriteria for cuff healing
Prospective Randomized Study - Sumant
INCLUSION CRITERIA
TECHNIQUE AT SUTURE ANCHORS
N cases 28 24
Retear (NH) 4 (14%) 4 (16%)
Grade I 10 (38%) 6 (26%)
Grade II 13 (48%) 8 (34%)
Grade III (PT) 1 (3%) 6 (26%)
OVERALL 86% 84%
Type I healing Type III healing
Type I: Sufficient thickness with homogeneously low intensity
Type II: Sufficient thickness with partial high intensity
Type III: Insufficient thickness without discontinuity
Type IV: Presence of a minor discontinuity
Type V: Presence of a major discontinuity
Arthroscopic Transosseous Repair Integrity
Various Centers
LOCATION STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY# OF CASES TO DATE
Krishnan ASES 2010 82% (49/60) MRI 1350
Mozes ISRAEL 2011 96% (48/50) U/S 98
Brassart FRANCE 2011 86% (33/38) U/S 241
Mikek SECEC 2011 95% (56/59) U/S 175
OVERALL 86% (214/239) >2000
Study Overall Integrity TypeSugaya JBJS 2007 83% ( 71 / 86 ) DR SA
DeBeer JBJS 2007 83% ( 174 / 210 ) DR SA
LaFosse JBJS 2007 89% (93 / 105 ) DR SA
ElAttrache AJSM 2008 88% (22 /25) TOE/Suture bridge
Gartsman ASES 2010 94% (44 / 47) TOE/Suture bridge
Volgt AJSM 2010 71% ( 32 / 45) TOE/Suture bridge
Boileau Nice 2010 72% (28 / 39) TOE/Suture bridge
Sethi JSES 2010 83% (33 / 40) TOE/Suture bridge
Toussaint AJSM 2011 86% (132 / 154) TOE/Suture bridge
Rhee AJSM 2011 67% (58 / 87) TOE/Suture bridge
Kim JBJS 2012 85% (62 / 73) TOE/Suture bridge
OVERALL 82% (749 / 911)
Double Row & TOE Repair Integrity
Requirement Transosseous
RCR
Suture Anchor
RCR
Contact Area X X
Initial Strength X X
Contact Stability X X
Gap Formation X X
Mechanical Stability X X
Biology X
No Implants in Bone X
Ideal Rotator Cuff Repair
Transosseous repairs10,000+ cases worldwide
Bone Tunnel Placement
Bone Quality
Overtensioning
Of repair
Number of Tunnels
Arthroscopic Transosseous RCRWHAT ARE THE CONCERNS AND RISK?
Arthroscopic Transosseous RCRREVISITING HISTORY
Tunnel Augmentation
Warner JP, Piza P
Warren Alpert Medical School 2012
Bone “Tunnel Protection”
Courtesy: Warner JP
Arthroscopic Transosseous RCRASSESS THE TEAR AND AVOID OVERTENSIONING
Shorter tendon = increased tension if pulled to normal length
Some cuffs cannot be pulled all the
way out to cover the old footprint
Myotendinous Junction Retears
Tight Cuff Tears
• Covers the footprint as much as possible and
remaining with suture
• Auto adjusts the tension – Spiral Binding
• Less over tensioning when compared to DR/ TOE
Arthroscopic Transosseous RCR
ComparisonARTHROTUNNELER Vs ANCHORS
Implant ARTHROTUNNELER
No Implant
ANCHORS
Implant Present
Small Tears
Single tunnel
Expensive Cheap
Large Tears
Two or three tunnel
Cheap Expensive
Technique Simple suture - Easy SR - Easy
Mattress suture - Demanding DR - Demanding
TOE - Easy
Biology Bone marrow from tunnel - More Less in vented anchors
Re tear Easy Re -operation Difficult
● Equivalent to Current Methods
● Repair Integrity
● Biomechanical Strength
● Reliable/Reproducible Technique
● Multiple Sutures
● Bone Tunnel Augmentation
● Assess the lesion
● Anatomic repair and avoid over tensioning
● More easy reoperation in case of Re-tear
● Biology
● Marrow elements from bone tunnels
Arthroscopic Transosseous RCRCONCLUSIONS
ARTHROSCOPIC TRANSOSSEOUS
(ANCHORLESS) ROTATOR CUFF REPAIR
Sai Institute of Sports Injury & Arthroscopy Shoulder & Knee Specialty Centre, Hyderabad
Dr. Raghuveer Reddy. K
IAS 2014
06 Hrs
Recent Advances
Rotator Cuff Repair
ARTHROSCOPIC TRANSOSSEOUS
(ANCHORLESS) ROTATOR CUFF REPAIR
Sai Institute of Sports Injury & Arthroscopy Shoulder & Knee Specialty Centre, Hyderabad
Dr. Raghuveer Reddy. K
OASIS 2014
TOE ConcernsMyotendinous Junction Retears
Lill, et al. Arthroscopic Supraspinatus Tendon Repair with
Suture Bridging Technique: Functional Outcome
and MRI. - AJSM 2010
Retear rate by MRI at 12 mos: 28.9%
Cho, et al. Retear Patterns After Arthroscopic Cuff Repair:
Single Row vs. Suture Bridge Technique. - AJSM
2010
27 cases of failed suture bridge technique74% failure at myotendinous junction
Gerhardt et
al.
Arthroscopic Single-Row Modified Mason-Allen
Repair vs. Double-Row SutureBridge
Reconstruction for Supraspinatus Tendon Tears -
AJSM Dec. 2012
20 patients/5 retears80% retears at myotendinous junction
TOE Concerns
Myotendinous Junction Retears
Hayashida et al. Characteristic re-tear pattern after arthroscopic double-row
repair. Arthroscopy, 2012
15% retear rate at myotendinous junction
Conclusion:
“A new repair method, which achieves a wide
footprint, a good initial fixation strength, and
avoids re-tearing around the proximal suture
anchors should be developed to obtain better
cuff integrity and clinical results.”