title: A biomechanical comparison of 2 techniques of footprint reconstruction for rotator cuff repair: the SwiveLock-FiberChain construct versus standard double-row repair.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical fixation parameters of a standard double-row rotator cuff repair with those of a knotless footprint reconstruction using the double-row SwiveLock-FiberChain technique (Arthrex, Naples, FL).
  
  
  METHODS
  Seven matched pairs of human cadaveric shoulders were used for testing (mean age, 48 +/- 10.3 years). A shoulder from each matched pair was randomly selected to receive a standard 4-anchor double-row repair of the supraspinatus tendon, and the contralateral shoulder received a 4-anchor double-row SwiveLock-FiberChain repair. The tendon was cycled from 10 N to 100 N at 1 Hz for 500 cycles, followed by a single-cycle pull to failure at 33 mm/s. Yield load, ultimate load, cyclic displacement, and mode of failure were recorded.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Yield load and ultimate load were higher for the SwiveLock-FiberChain repair compared with the standard double-row repair for 6 of the 7 treatment pairs; however, 1 cadaver had a contrary outcome, so the overall mean differences in yield load and ultimate load were not significantly different from 0 by Student t test (P > .15). Furthermore, smaller differences between yield load and ultimate load for the SwiveLock-FiberChain repair in 5 of the 7 treatment pairs showed a self-reinforcing mechanism.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Double-row footprint reconstruction with the knotless SwiveLock-FiberChain system in this study had yield loads, ultimate loads, and cyclic displacements that were statistically equivalent to those of standard double-row rotation cuff reconstructions.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The SwiveLock-FiberChain system's combination of strength, self-reinforcement, and decreased operating time may offer advantages to the surgeon, particularly when dealing with older patients in whom poor tissue quality and total operative time are important considerations.
authors.affiliation: The San Antonio Orthopaedic Group, San Antonio, Texas, USA. ssburkhart@msn.com
authors.forename: Stephen S
authors.initials: SS
authors.lastname: Burkhart
authors.forename: Christopher R
authors.initials: CR
authors.lastname: Adams
authors.forename: Sarah S
authors.initials: SS
authors.lastname: Burkhart
authors.forename: John D
authors.initials: JD
authors.lastname: Schoolfield
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D001182:Arthroscopy / Q000379:methods; D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena; D002102:Cadaver; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D053580:Muscle Strength / Q000502:physiology; D019651:Plastic Surgery Procedures / Q000379:methods*; D017006:Rotator Cuff / Q000601:surgery*; D012785:Shoulder Joint / Q000503:physiopathology* / Q000601:surgery; D013997:Time Factors; D017211:Treatment Failure; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D016474:Weight-Bearing