↓ Skip to main content

A biomechanical and histological comparison of the suture bridge and conventional double-row techniques of the repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears in a rabbit model

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A biomechanical and histological comparison of the suture bridge and conventional double-row techniques of the repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears in a rabbit model
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12891-015-0601-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wenyong Fei, Weichun Guo

Abstract

The suture bridge (SB) technique and conventional double-row (DR) are both effective in repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears . However, increasing numbers of scholars believe that the SB technique produces better results than conventional DR because of the higher bone-tendon contact area and pressure. However, The clinical outcomes have been mixed and little direct evidence has been supplied in vivo. This study was designed using the SB and DR techniques to determine which is the better technique. Sixty-four New Zealand white rabbits were randomly divided into 2 groups, the SB group and DR group. SB and DR were then used to repair their rotator cuff tears. Rabbits were then sacrificed at the 2(nd), 4(th), or 8(th) week after surgery and a histological comparison was made. The biomechanical comparison was made at the 8(th) week. The load to failure of the SB group was 134.59 ± 17.69 N at the 8(th) postoperative week, and that was significantly higher than in the DR group (103.83 ± 6.62, P = 0.001), but both repair groups remained lower than in the control group (199.25 ± 14.81). Histological evaluation showed that both the SB and DR groups healed at the bone-tendon interface. But there were subtle differences between the two groups in the structure and morphology of collagen fibers and cartilage cells at bone-tendon interface. In general, the collagen fibers of the SB group were more compact than those of the DR group at all times tested. At the 4(th) and 8(th) weeks, the collagen fibers and cartilage cells in the SB group were arranged in a column modality, but those in the DR group were distributed horizontally. The SB technique facilitated healing more effectively than the conventional DR technique. The difference in morphology of collagen fibers and cartilage cells may be related to the difference in bone-tendon contact pressure.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 14%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 9 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 22%
Engineering 3 8%
Chemistry 1 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 February 2016.
All research outputs
#13,091,840
of 22,817,213 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,797
of 4,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,105
of 239,905 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#23
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,817,213 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 239,905 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.