Hapa, OnurBarber, F. AlanSunbuloglu, EminKocabey, YavuzSarkalkan, NazliBaysal, Gokhan2024-09-182024-09-1820110942-20561433-7347https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-010-1322-yhttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12483/12082The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the mechanical performance and initial strength of the arthroscopic Mason-Allen, double mattress, inclined Mason-Allen, and lasso loop stitch configurations. Using 36 sheep infraspinatus tendons, tendon widths and thicknesses were measured with a digital caliper to confirm standardization of the tendons. Four different stitch configurations (Mason-Allen, inclined Mason-Allen, double mattress, and lasso loop) were biomechanically tested with cyclic loading followed by load to failure testing. The cyclic elongation, peak-to-peak displacement, ultimate tensile strength, stiffness, and mode of failure were recorded. Mean tendon widths and thicknesses were statistically the same. The lasso loop (0.7 +/- A 0.1 mm) demonstrated a mean cyclic elongation greater than the Mason-Allen (0.5 +/- A 0.3 mm) and double mattress (0.5 +/- A 0.3 mm) groups (P = 0.011; P = 0.013). No differences were found in ultimate failure load, stiffness, and peak-to-peak displacement for the Mason-Allen (mean 99 +/- A 42 N, 39 +/- A 9 N/mm, 0.6 +/- A 0,1 mm), inclined Mason-Allen (113 +/- A 52 N, 44 +/- A 14 N/mm, 0.5 +/- A 0.1 mm), double mattress stitch (119 +/- A 68 N, 45 +/- A 10 N/mm, 0.5 +/- A 0.1 mm), or lasso loop (100 +/- A 38 N, 42 +/- A 7 N/mm, 0.5 +/- A 0.1 mm) groups (n.s.). Each specimen failed at the suture-tendon interface. Three specimens (two Mason-Allen and one inclined Mason-Allen) failed during cyclic testing. Conventional Mason-Allen configuration can be applied with double-loaded suture anchor safely. Recent modifications of the configurations offer no biomechanical advantage.eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessRotator cuff repairMason-AllenLasso loopDouble mattress stitchArticle19101749175410.1007/s00167-010-1322-y210859302-s2.0-80052870740Q1WOS:000295037900023Q1