Biomechanical Performance of Traditional Arthroscopic Knots Versus Slippage-Proof Knots

Purpose To compare the biomechanical, time, and profile characteristics of a new sliding locking knot termed the slippage-proof knot (SPK) and a modified slippage-proof knot (MSPK) with those of traditional arthroscopic knots. Methods We evaluated the Samsung Medical Center (SMC) knot, Revo knot, SP...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Arthroscopy 2013-07, Vol.29 (7), p.1175-1181
Hauptverfasser: Clark, Randy R., M.D, Dierckman, Brian, M.D, Sampaticos, Nels, M.D, Snyder, Stephen, M.D
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1181
container_issue 7
container_start_page 1175
container_title Arthroscopy
container_volume 29
creator Clark, Randy R., M.D
Dierckman, Brian, M.D
Sampaticos, Nels, M.D
Snyder, Stephen, M.D
description Purpose To compare the biomechanical, time, and profile characteristics of a new sliding locking knot termed the slippage-proof knot (SPK) and a modified slippage-proof knot (MSPK) with those of traditional arthroscopic knots. Methods We evaluated the Samsung Medical Center (SMC) knot, Revo knot, SPK, and MSPK (an SPK with a single added half-hitch) tied with high-strength suture, with 11 trials of each cycled 1,000 times between 10 and 45 N and then loaded to failure. Total displacement during cyclical testing, maximal load to failure, and mode of failure were recorded for each knot. We also measured the dimensions of the knots and the time required to tie each knot. Results On load-to-failure testing, no difference in strength was found between the SMC and Revo knots ( P  = .082). The Revo knot and MSPK were also of equivalent strength ( P  = .183), and the SMC knot was 11% stronger than the MSPK ( P  = .017). All 3 of these knots were stronger than the SPK. On cyclical testing, the SMC knot, Revo knot, and MSPK allowed equivalent total displacement and allowed statistically less total displacement than the SPK. All SMC knots, Revo knots, and MSPKs failed by suture breakage, whereas the SPKs all slipped at failure. We found that the SPKs and MSPKs are tied more quickly than traditional knots. The SPK and MSPK dimensions are wider yet shorter than those of the other knots in the study. Conclusions Our results indicate that the MSPK has biomechanical properties comparable to the SMC and Revo knots despite only requiring 1 added half-hitch, whereas the SPK was found to be significantly inferior to the other knots tested. We found that the slippage-proof knots (SPK and MSPK) were tied more quickly and have shorter, wider profiles than traditional knots. Clinical Relevance The MSPK has knot security comparable to the SMC and Revo knots while requiring only 1 added half-hitch, and it may be most beneficial in cases in which a large number of knots will be tied because the fewer required half-hitches reduces the surgical time without reducing its biomechanical properties.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.arthro.2013.04.012
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1373436764</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0749806313003757</els_id><sourcerecordid>1373436764</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c487t-6c0db63f73c7e04c0df81fb04d2c4f56334a324a22805ec08da7673a9230550a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkUFv1DAQhS0EotvCP0AoRy4JY49jZy9IpYKCWqmVWuBoeZ0J9ZLEwU6Q-u_x7pYeuPRkWfPejN73GHvDoeLA1fttZeN8F0MlgGMFsgIunrEVr4UqUSB_zlag5bpsQOERO05pCwCIDb5kRwIbWMuar9iPjz4M5O7s6J3ti2uKXYiDHR0VoStuo2397MOYR6f7a8mFybviYgxzKr5TTEsqbno_TfYnldcxZNN-9oq96Gyf6PXDe8K-ff50e_alvLw6_3p2elk62ei5VA7ajcJOo9MEMv-6hncbkK1wsqsVorQopBWigZocNK3VSqNdC4S6Bosn7N1h7xTD74XSbAafHPW9HSksyXDUKFFpJbNUHqQux0iROjNFP9h4bziYHVKzNQekZofUgDQZaba9fbiwbAZqH03_GGbBh4OAcs4_nqJJzlMm2PpIbjZt8E9d-H-B6_2-j190T2kblpgLyFlMEgbMza7WXascc6G61vgXi-yedA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1373436764</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Biomechanical Performance of Traditional Arthroscopic Knots Versus Slippage-Proof Knots</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Clark, Randy R., M.D ; Dierckman, Brian, M.D ; Sampaticos, Nels, M.D ; Snyder, Stephen, M.D</creator><creatorcontrib>Clark, Randy R., M.D ; Dierckman, Brian, M.D ; Sampaticos, Nels, M.D ; Snyder, Stephen, M.D</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose To compare the biomechanical, time, and profile characteristics of a new sliding locking knot termed the slippage-proof knot (SPK) and a modified slippage-proof knot (MSPK) with those of traditional arthroscopic knots. Methods We evaluated the Samsung Medical Center (SMC) knot, Revo knot, SPK, and MSPK (an SPK with a single added half-hitch) tied with high-strength suture, with 11 trials of each cycled 1,000 times between 10 and 45 N and then loaded to failure. Total displacement during cyclical testing, maximal load to failure, and mode of failure were recorded for each knot. We also measured the dimensions of the knots and the time required to tie each knot. Results On load-to-failure testing, no difference in strength was found between the SMC and Revo knots ( P  = .082). The Revo knot and MSPK were also of equivalent strength ( P  = .183), and the SMC knot was 11% stronger than the MSPK ( P  = .017). All 3 of these knots were stronger than the SPK. On cyclical testing, the SMC knot, Revo knot, and MSPK allowed equivalent total displacement and allowed statistically less total displacement than the SPK. All SMC knots, Revo knots, and MSPKs failed by suture breakage, whereas the SPKs all slipped at failure. We found that the SPKs and MSPKs are tied more quickly than traditional knots. The SPK and MSPK dimensions are wider yet shorter than those of the other knots in the study. Conclusions Our results indicate that the MSPK has biomechanical properties comparable to the SMC and Revo knots despite only requiring 1 added half-hitch, whereas the SPK was found to be significantly inferior to the other knots tested. We found that the slippage-proof knots (SPK and MSPK) were tied more quickly and have shorter, wider profiles than traditional knots. Clinical Relevance The MSPK has knot security comparable to the SMC and Revo knots while requiring only 1 added half-hitch, and it may be most beneficial in cases in which a large number of knots will be tied because the fewer required half-hitches reduces the surgical time without reducing its biomechanical properties.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0749-8063</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1526-3231</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2013.04.012</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23809451</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Arthroscopy ; Biomechanical Phenomena ; Humans ; Materials Testing - methods ; Medical Illustration ; Orthopedics ; Suture Techniques ; Sutures ; Tensile Strength ; Weight-Bearing</subject><ispartof>Arthroscopy, 2013-07, Vol.29 (7), p.1175-1181</ispartof><rights>Arthroscopy Association of North America</rights><rights>2013 Arthroscopy Association of North America</rights><rights>Copyright © 2013 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c487t-6c0db63f73c7e04c0df81fb04d2c4f56334a324a22805ec08da7673a9230550a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c487t-6c0db63f73c7e04c0df81fb04d2c4f56334a324a22805ec08da7673a9230550a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749806313003757$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23809451$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Clark, Randy R., M.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dierckman, Brian, M.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sampaticos, Nels, M.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Snyder, Stephen, M.D</creatorcontrib><title>Biomechanical Performance of Traditional Arthroscopic Knots Versus Slippage-Proof Knots</title><title>Arthroscopy</title><addtitle>Arthroscopy</addtitle><description>Purpose To compare the biomechanical, time, and profile characteristics of a new sliding locking knot termed the slippage-proof knot (SPK) and a modified slippage-proof knot (MSPK) with those of traditional arthroscopic knots. Methods We evaluated the Samsung Medical Center (SMC) knot, Revo knot, SPK, and MSPK (an SPK with a single added half-hitch) tied with high-strength suture, with 11 trials of each cycled 1,000 times between 10 and 45 N and then loaded to failure. Total displacement during cyclical testing, maximal load to failure, and mode of failure were recorded for each knot. We also measured the dimensions of the knots and the time required to tie each knot. Results On load-to-failure testing, no difference in strength was found between the SMC and Revo knots ( P  = .082). The Revo knot and MSPK were also of equivalent strength ( P  = .183), and the SMC knot was 11% stronger than the MSPK ( P  = .017). All 3 of these knots were stronger than the SPK. On cyclical testing, the SMC knot, Revo knot, and MSPK allowed equivalent total displacement and allowed statistically less total displacement than the SPK. All SMC knots, Revo knots, and MSPKs failed by suture breakage, whereas the SPKs all slipped at failure. We found that the SPKs and MSPKs are tied more quickly than traditional knots. The SPK and MSPK dimensions are wider yet shorter than those of the other knots in the study. Conclusions Our results indicate that the MSPK has biomechanical properties comparable to the SMC and Revo knots despite only requiring 1 added half-hitch, whereas the SPK was found to be significantly inferior to the other knots tested. We found that the slippage-proof knots (SPK and MSPK) were tied more quickly and have shorter, wider profiles than traditional knots. Clinical Relevance The MSPK has knot security comparable to the SMC and Revo knots while requiring only 1 added half-hitch, and it may be most beneficial in cases in which a large number of knots will be tied because the fewer required half-hitches reduces the surgical time without reducing its biomechanical properties.</description><subject>Arthroscopy</subject><subject>Biomechanical Phenomena</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Materials Testing - methods</subject><subject>Medical Illustration</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Suture Techniques</subject><subject>Sutures</subject><subject>Tensile Strength</subject><subject>Weight-Bearing</subject><issn>0749-8063</issn><issn>1526-3231</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkUFv1DAQhS0EotvCP0AoRy4JY49jZy9IpYKCWqmVWuBoeZ0J9ZLEwU6Q-u_x7pYeuPRkWfPejN73GHvDoeLA1fttZeN8F0MlgGMFsgIunrEVr4UqUSB_zlag5bpsQOERO05pCwCIDb5kRwIbWMuar9iPjz4M5O7s6J3ti2uKXYiDHR0VoStuo2397MOYR6f7a8mFybviYgxzKr5TTEsqbno_TfYnldcxZNN-9oq96Gyf6PXDe8K-ff50e_alvLw6_3p2elk62ei5VA7ajcJOo9MEMv-6hncbkK1wsqsVorQopBWigZocNK3VSqNdC4S6Bosn7N1h7xTD74XSbAafHPW9HSksyXDUKFFpJbNUHqQux0iROjNFP9h4bziYHVKzNQekZofUgDQZaba9fbiwbAZqH03_GGbBh4OAcs4_nqJJzlMm2PpIbjZt8E9d-H-B6_2-j190T2kblpgLyFlMEgbMza7WXascc6G61vgXi-yedA</recordid><startdate>20130701</startdate><enddate>20130701</enddate><creator>Clark, Randy R., M.D</creator><creator>Dierckman, Brian, M.D</creator><creator>Sampaticos, Nels, M.D</creator><creator>Snyder, Stephen, M.D</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130701</creationdate><title>Biomechanical Performance of Traditional Arthroscopic Knots Versus Slippage-Proof Knots</title><author>Clark, Randy R., M.D ; Dierckman, Brian, M.D ; Sampaticos, Nels, M.D ; Snyder, Stephen, M.D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c487t-6c0db63f73c7e04c0df81fb04d2c4f56334a324a22805ec08da7673a9230550a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Arthroscopy</topic><topic>Biomechanical Phenomena</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Materials Testing - methods</topic><topic>Medical Illustration</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Suture Techniques</topic><topic>Sutures</topic><topic>Tensile Strength</topic><topic>Weight-Bearing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Clark, Randy R., M.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dierckman, Brian, M.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sampaticos, Nels, M.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Snyder, Stephen, M.D</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Arthroscopy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Clark, Randy R., M.D</au><au>Dierckman, Brian, M.D</au><au>Sampaticos, Nels, M.D</au><au>Snyder, Stephen, M.D</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Biomechanical Performance of Traditional Arthroscopic Knots Versus Slippage-Proof Knots</atitle><jtitle>Arthroscopy</jtitle><addtitle>Arthroscopy</addtitle><date>2013-07-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>1175</spage><epage>1181</epage><pages>1175-1181</pages><issn>0749-8063</issn><eissn>1526-3231</eissn><abstract>Purpose To compare the biomechanical, time, and profile characteristics of a new sliding locking knot termed the slippage-proof knot (SPK) and a modified slippage-proof knot (MSPK) with those of traditional arthroscopic knots. Methods We evaluated the Samsung Medical Center (SMC) knot, Revo knot, SPK, and MSPK (an SPK with a single added half-hitch) tied with high-strength suture, with 11 trials of each cycled 1,000 times between 10 and 45 N and then loaded to failure. Total displacement during cyclical testing, maximal load to failure, and mode of failure were recorded for each knot. We also measured the dimensions of the knots and the time required to tie each knot. Results On load-to-failure testing, no difference in strength was found between the SMC and Revo knots ( P  = .082). The Revo knot and MSPK were also of equivalent strength ( P  = .183), and the SMC knot was 11% stronger than the MSPK ( P  = .017). All 3 of these knots were stronger than the SPK. On cyclical testing, the SMC knot, Revo knot, and MSPK allowed equivalent total displacement and allowed statistically less total displacement than the SPK. All SMC knots, Revo knots, and MSPKs failed by suture breakage, whereas the SPKs all slipped at failure. We found that the SPKs and MSPKs are tied more quickly than traditional knots. The SPK and MSPK dimensions are wider yet shorter than those of the other knots in the study. Conclusions Our results indicate that the MSPK has biomechanical properties comparable to the SMC and Revo knots despite only requiring 1 added half-hitch, whereas the SPK was found to be significantly inferior to the other knots tested. We found that the slippage-proof knots (SPK and MSPK) were tied more quickly and have shorter, wider profiles than traditional knots. Clinical Relevance The MSPK has knot security comparable to the SMC and Revo knots while requiring only 1 added half-hitch, and it may be most beneficial in cases in which a large number of knots will be tied because the fewer required half-hitches reduces the surgical time without reducing its biomechanical properties.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>23809451</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.arthro.2013.04.012</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0749-8063
ispartof Arthroscopy, 2013-07, Vol.29 (7), p.1175-1181
issn 0749-8063
1526-3231
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1373436764
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Arthroscopy
Biomechanical Phenomena
Humans
Materials Testing - methods
Medical Illustration
Orthopedics
Suture Techniques
Sutures
Tensile Strength
Weight-Bearing
title Biomechanical Performance of Traditional Arthroscopic Knots Versus Slippage-Proof Knots
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-03T02%3A22%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Biomechanical%20Performance%20of%20Traditional%20Arthroscopic%20Knots%20Versus%20Slippage-Proof%20Knots&rft.jtitle=Arthroscopy&rft.au=Clark,%20Randy%20R.,%20M.D&rft.date=2013-07-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=1175&rft.epage=1181&rft.pages=1175-1181&rft.issn=0749-8063&rft.eissn=1526-3231&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.arthro.2013.04.012&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1373436764%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1373436764&rft_id=info:pmid/23809451&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S0749806313003757&rfr_iscdi=true