Superior Primary Stability of a Knotless Double-Row Construct Compared to Mason-Allen Repair for Anatomical Refixation of Gluteal Tendons—Biomechanical Human Cadaver Study

Abstract

Objectives: Hip abductor tendon tears remain an underrecognized diagnosis, initially classified under Greater Trochanteric Pain Syndrome. This often results in ineffective conservative treatment, providing only temporary pain relief. While certain surgical approaches, particularly knotless double-row repair techniques (Hip Bridge) have shown promising clinical outcomes, comprehensive biomechanical data remain insufficient. Therefore, this study aimed to biomechanically compare Hip Bridge (HB) repair with the standard Mason-Allen (MA) technique using a human cadaver model.

Methods: Gluteus minimus and medius were released in 12 fresh-frozen human cadaveric specimens and reattached to their anatomical footprints either with transosseous MA or knotless double-row HB technique. HB consisted of two proximal PEEK (polyetheretherketone) anchors, each preloaded with double-V shaped tapes, crossed, and distally fixated with two additional anchors. Femurs were fixated in a custom-made sample holder while gluteal muscles were clamped using a cryo-jaw. The construct underwent a cyclic loading test between 10 and 125 N for 150 cycles at 2.5 Hz (preload 10 N), followed by a pull-to-failure test. Failure mode and elongation were determined, the latter by a 3D optical measurement system. Statistical analysis was performed using t-test.

Results: HB repair resulted in significantly higher ultimate failure loads (339.1 ± 144.4 N) compared to the MA technique (209.6 ± 62.1 N, p = 0.0381). HB failed exclusively due to tendon failure, whereas MA exhibited different failure modes: tendon failure (1/6), bone cutting (4/6), and muscle rupture (1/6). During cyclic loading, the calculated final plastic elongation was 4.4 ± 0.5 mm for MA and 3.4 ± 1.4 mm for HB (p = 0.0731). During pull-to-failure testing, stiffness of 59.7 ± 12.5 N/mm (MA) and 66.8 ± 18.4 N/mm (HB) was observed (p = 0.247).

Conclusion: The HipBridge technique provides superior biomechanical stability compared to the standard Mason-Allen repair, showing significantly higher ultimate failure load and reduced failure variability. This advantage may be attributed to greater contact restoration of the anatomical footprint, which is particularly beneficial for treating weakened tendons and bones in elderly patients.

Keywords

anatomical refixation / gluteal tendon repair / gluteus medius / gluteus minimus / greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS) / HipBridge / SpeedBridge

References

[1] S. S. Long, D. E. Surrey, and L. N. Nazarian, “Sonography of Greater Trochanteric Pain Syndrome and the Rarity of Primary Bursitis,” American Journal of Roentgenology 201, no. 5 (2013): 1083-1086.

[2] T. D. Bunker, C. N. Esler, and W. J. Leach, “Rotator-Cuff Tear of the Hip,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 79, no. 4 (1997): 618-620.

[3] H. Gollwitzer, M. Hauschild, N. Harrasser, R. von Eisenhart-Rothe, and I. J. Banke, “Surgical Refixation of Gluteal Tendon Tears by Mini-Open Double-Row Technique,” Operative Orthopädie und Traumatologie 30, no. 6 (2018): 410-418.

[4] L. A. Whiteside and M. E. Roy, “Incidence and Treatment of Abductor Deficiency During Total Hip Arthroplasty Using the Posterior Approach: Repair With Direct Suture Technique and Gluteus Maximus Flap Transfer,” Bone & Joint Journal 101-b, no. 6 (2019): 116-122.

[5] J. R. Ebert, T. A. Bucher, S. V. Ball, and G. C. Janes, “A Review of Surgical Repair Methods and Patient Outcomes for Gluteal Tendon Tears,” Hip International 25, no. 1 (2015): 15-23.

[6] I. J. Banke, P. M. Prodinger, M. Weber, et al., “Gluteal Insufficiency,” Der Orthopäde 49, no. 8 (2020): 737-748.

[7] C. A. Kahlenberg, B. U. Nwachukwu, H. Jahandar, K. N. Meyers, and A. S. Ranawat, “Single-Versus Double-Row Repair of Hip Abductor Tears: A Biomechanical Matched Cadaver Study,” Arthroscopy 35, no. 3 (2019): 818-823.

[8] B. G. Domb and D. S. Carreira, “Endoscopic Repair of Full-Thickness Gluteus Medius Tears,” Arthroscopy Techniques 2, no. 2 (2013): e77-e81.

[9] F. McCormick, K. Alpaugh, B. U. Nwachukwu, A. B. Yanke, and S. D. Martin, “Endoscopic Repair of Full-Thickness Abductor Tendon Tears: Surgical Technique and Outcome at Minimum of 1-Year Follow-Up,” Arthroscopy 29, no. 12 (2013): 1941-1947.

[10] K. G. Makridis, M. Lequesne, H. Bard, and P. Djian, “Clinical and MRI Results in 67 Patients Operated for Gluteus Medius and Minimus Tendon Tears With a Median Follow-Up of 4.6 Years,” Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Surgery & Research 100, no. 8 (2014): 849-853.

[11] S. Chandrasekaran, P. Lodhia, C. Gui, S. P. Vemula, T. J. Martin, and B. G. Domb, “Outcomes of Open Versus Endoscopic Repair of Abductor Muscle Tears of the Hip: A Systematic Review,” Arthroscopy 31, no. 10 (2015): 2057.

[12] B. G. Domb, I. Botser, and B. D. Giordano, “Outcomes of Endoscopic Gluteus Medius Repair With Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up,” American Journal of Sports Medicine 41, no. 5 (2013): 988-997.

[13] Y. Haroun, M. H. Sobhy, H. A. Khater, and A. H. Khater, “Comparison Between Four Different Suture Configurations for Rotator Cuff Repair: A Biomechanical Animal Study,” Société Internationale de Chirurgie Orthopédique et de Traumatologie 10 (2024): 39.

[14] C. Gerber, A. G. Schneeberger, M. Beck, and U. Schlegel, “Mechanical Strength of Repairs of the Rotator Cuff,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 76, no. 3 (1994): 371-380.

[15] A. García-Cacho Lascurain, M. González-Sánchez, F. J. Martínez-Ruiz, et al., “Clinical Results in Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair With the Modified Mason-Allen Technique,” Acta Ortopédica Mexicana 36, no. 5 (2022): 286-291.

[16] S. Pauly, D. Fiebig, B. Kieser, B. Albrecht, A. Schill, and M. Scheibel, “Biomechanical Comparison of Four Double-Row Speed-Bridging Rotator Cuff Repair Techniques With or Without Medial or Lateral Row Enhancement,” Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 19, no. 12 (2011): 2090-2097.

[17] J. G. Dishkin-Paset, M. J. Salata, C. E. Gross, et al., “A Biomechanical Comparison of Repair Techniques for Complete Gluteus Medius Tears,” Arthroscopy 28, no. 10 (2012): 1410-1416.

[18] C. O. Nelson, M. J. Sileo, M. G. Grossman, and F. Serra-Hsu, “Single-Row Modified Mason-Allen Versus Double-Row Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Biomechanical and Surface Area Comparison,” Arthroscopy 24, no. 8 (2008): 941-948.

[19] B. N. Safa, A. H. Lee, M. H. Santare, and D. M. Elliott, “Evaluating Plastic Deformation and Damage as Potential Mechanisms for Tendon Inelasticity Using a Reactive Modeling Framework,” Journal of Biomechanical Engineering 141, no. 10 (2019): 1010081-10100810.

[20] M. Hope and T. S. Saxby, “Tendon Healing,” Foot and Ankle Clinics 12, no. 4 (2007): 553-567.

[21] P. Collotte, T. D. Vieira, and A. J. Bois, “Arthroscopic Double-Row Repair of Posterosuperior Rotator Cuff Tears: Suture Bridge Technique Reinforced With Modified Mason-Allen and Simple Sutures,” Arthroscopy Techniques 11, no. 12 (2022): e2295-e2301.

[22] M. H. Baums, T. Kostuj, H. M. Klinger, and R. Papalia, “Rotator Cuff Repair: Single- Vs Double-Row. Clinical and Biomechanical Results,” Orthopade 45, no. 2 (2016): 118-124.

[23] M. Barrera, H. Bothorel, L. Poultsides, and P. Christofilopoulos, “Short-Term Outcomes Following Mini-Open Repair of Chronic Gluteus Medius Tendon Tears Using a Double-Row Technique,” Journal of Hip Preservation Surgery 8, no. 2 (2021): 202-208.

[24] D. H. Kim, N. S. Elattrache, J. E. Tibone, et al., “Biomechanical Comparison of a Single-Row Versus Double-Row Suture Anchor Technique for Rotator Cuff Repair,” American Journal of Sports Medicine 34, no. 3 (2006): 407-414.

[25] A. Maslaris, T. P. Vail, A. L. Zhang, R. Patel, M. Jäger, and S. A. Bini, “Equivalent Mid-Term Results of Open vs Endoscopic Gluteal Tendon Tear Repair Using Suture Anchors in Forty-Five Patients,” Journal of Arthroplasty 35, no. S6 (2020): S352-S358.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2025 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.