Arşiv logosu
  • Türkçe
  • English
  • Giriş
    Yeni kullanıcı mısınız? Kayıt için tıklayın. Şifrenizi mi unuttunuz?
Arşiv logosu
  • Koleksiyonlar
  • Sistem İçeriği
  • Analiz
  • Talep/Soru
  • Türkçe
  • English
  • Giriş
    Yeni kullanıcı mısınız? Kayıt için tıklayın. Şifrenizi mi unuttunuz?
  1. Ana Sayfa
  2. Yazara Göre Listele

Yazar "Hrnack, Scott A." seçeneğine göre listele

Listeleniyor 1 - 2 / 2
Sayfa Başına Sonuç
Sıralama seçenekleri
  • Yükleniyor...
    Küçük Resim
    Öğe
    Biomechanical Analysis of Pullout Strengths of Rotator Cuff and Glenoid Anchors: 2011 Update
    (W B Saunders Co-Elsevier Inc, 2011) Barber, F. Alan; Herbert, Morley A.; Hapa, Onur; Rapley, Jay H.; Barber, Cameron A. K.; Bynum, James A.; Hrnack, Scott A.
    Purpose: To evaluate the biomechanical and design characteristics of newer suture anchors. Methods: Suture anchors were tested in fresh porcine metaphyseal cortex and cancellous troughs by use of an established protocol. A mechanical testing machine applied tensile loads parallel to the axis of insertion at 12.5 mm/s until failure, and mean anchor failure strengths were calculated. The mode of failure was recorded. Rotator cuff anchors tested included the Doubleplay and Opus SpeedScrew (ArthroCare Sports Medicine, Sunnyvale, CA); PEEK Intraline and PEEK Zip (Stryker, San Jose, CA); Paladin, SuperRevo FT, and CrossFT (ConMed Linvatec, Largo, FL); Piton (Tornier, Warsaw, IN); Ti Screw, ALLthread PEEK, LactoScrew, ALLthread Ti, and ALLthread PEEK knotless (Biomet Sports Medicine, Warsaw, IN). Glenoid anchors included the Gryphon BR P (DePuy-Mitek, Raynham, MA) and JuggerKnot 1.4 (Biomet Sports Medicine). Results: Mean cortical failure loads for cuff anchors were as follows: Doubleplay 5.0, 279 N; Doubleplay 6.5, 338 N; Opus SpeedScrew 5.5, 356 N; Opus SpeedScrew 6.5, 336 N; PEEK Intraline 5.5, 263 N; PEEK Intraline 6.5, 344 N; PEEK Zip 5.5, 435 N; PEEK Zip 6.5, 502 N; Paladin 5.0, 500 N; Paladin 6.5, 521 N; SuperRevo FT, 496 N; CrossFT, 569 N; Piton, 379 N; Ti Screw 5.0, 457 N; Ti Screw 6.5, 443 N; ALLthread PEEK 5.5, 476 N; LactoScrew 5.5, 403 N; ALLthread Ti 5.0, 526 N; ALLthread Ti 6.5, 653 N; and ALLthread PEEK knotless, 441 N). Mean cortical failure loads for glenoid anchors were 161 N for Gryphon BR P and 239 N for JuggerKnot 1.4. Mean cancellous bone failure loads for cuff anchors were Doubleplay 5.0, 263 N; Doubleplay 6.5, 340 N; Opus SpeedScrew 5.5, 356 N; Opus SpeedScrew 6.5, 344 N; PEEK Intraline 5.5, 274 N; PEEK Intraline 6.5, 327 N; PEEK Zip 5.5, 401 N; PEEK Zip 6.5, 396 N; Paladin 5.0, 427 N; Paladin 6.5, 491 N; SuperRevo FT, 483 N; CrossFT, 547 N; Piton, 365 N; Ti Screw 5.0, 420 N; Ti Screw 6.5, 448 N; ALLthread PEEK 5.5, 475 N; LactoScrew 5.5, 435 N; ALLthread Ti 5.0, 512 N; ALLthread Ti 6.5, 612 N; and ALLthread PEEK knotless, 466 N). Mean cancellous failure loads for glenoid anchors were 117 N for Gryphon BR P and 194 N for JuggerKnot 1.4. None of the anchors had pullout as the predominant failure mode. Eyelet failure was the predominant failure mode for Doubleplay, Opus SpeedScrew, PEEK Intraline, Gryphon BR P, ALLthread Ti 6.5, ALLthread PEEK 5.5, and LactoScrew. Conclusions: Failure load was not dependent on anchor location (cancellous or cortical bone) (P = .58) but was dependent on anchor type (cuff anchor or glenoid anchor) (P < .001). Clinical Relevance: Whereas larger fully threaded screw anchors designed for rotator cuff repair showed higher failure strengths than smaller non-screw anchors designed for glenoid repairs (P < .05), the larger version of a screw anchor for a cuff repair did not provide a statistically greater failure load than the smaller screw anchor.
  • Yükleniyor...
    Küçük Resim
    Öğe
    Rotator Cuff Repair Healing Influenced by Platelet-Rich Plasma Construct Augmentation
    (W B Saunders Co-Elsevier Inc, 2011) Barber, F. Alan; Hrnack, Scott A.; Snyder, Stephen J.; Hapa, Onur
    Purpose: To assess the effect of platelet-rich plasma fibrin matrix (PRPFM) construct augmentation on postoperative tendon healing as determined by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and clinical outcome of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Methods: A comparative series of patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair was studied. Two matched groups of patients (20 each) were included: rotator cuff repairs without PRPFM augmentation (group 1) and rotator cuff repairs augmented with 2 sutured platelet-rich plasma (PRP) constructs (group 2). A single-row cuff repair to the normal footprint without tension or marrow vents was performed by a single surgeon. Postoperative rehabilitation was held constant. Postoperative MRI scans were used to evaluate rotator cuff healing. Outcome measures included American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Rowe, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, Simple Shoulder Test, and Constant scores. Results: We followed up 40 patients (2 matched groups with 20 patients each) with a mean age of 57 years (range, 44 to 69 years) for a mean of 31 months (range, 24 to 44 months). Postoperative MRI studies showed persistent full-thickness tendon defects in 60% of controls (12 of 20) and 30% of PRPFM-augmented repairs (6 of 20) (P = .03). Of the control group tears measuring less than 3 cm in anteroposterior length, 50% (7 of 14) healed fully, whereas 86% of the PRPFM group tears measuring less than 3 cm in anteroposterior length (12 of 14) healed fully (P = .05). There was no significant difference between groups 1 and 2 in terms of American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (94.7 and 95.7, respectively; P = .35), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (93.7 and 94.5, respectively; P = .37), Simple Shoulder Test (11.4 and 11.3, respectively; P = .41), and Constant (84.7 and 88.1, respectively; P = .19) scores. The Rowe scores (84.8 and 94.9, respectively; P = .03) were statistically different. Conclusions: The addition of 2 PRPFM constructs sutured into a primary rotator cuff tendon repair resulted in lower retear rates identified on MRI than repairs without the constructs. Other than the Rowe scores, there was no postoperative clinical difference by use of standard outcome measures. Level of Evidence: Level III, case-control study.

| Hatay Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi | Kütüphane | Açık Erişim Politikası | Rehber | OAI-PMH |

Bu site Creative Commons Alıntı-Gayri Ticari-Türetilemez 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile korunmaktadır.


Hatay Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi, Hatay, TÜRKİYE
İçerikte herhangi bir hata görürseniz lütfen bize bildirin

DSpace 7.6.1, Powered by İdeal DSpace

DSpace yazılımı telif hakkı © 2002-2025 LYRASIS

  • Çerez Ayarları
  • Gizlilik Politikası
  • Son Kullanıcı Sözleşmesi
  • Geri Bildirim