Tissue anchor use in arthroscopic glenohumeral surgery

Assessing the application of barbed sutures in comparison to conventional sutures for surgical applications: a global systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical animal studies

BACKGROUND

Following an initiative published by Lancet in 2002 and an IDEAL-D framework, the value of preclinical animal studies has garnered increasing attention in recent research. Numerous preclinical animal experiments tried to generate evidence to guide the development of barbed sutures. However, discernible drawbacks and incongruities in outcomes have emerged between clinical and preclinical animal studies. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to review the preclinical animal experiments comparing barbed sutures with conventional sutures. The authors hope to facilitate clinical translation of barbed sutures by evaluating effectiveness, safety, and physical properties/reliability.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted to identify controlled preclinical animal experiments comparing barbed sutures with conventional sutures. The risk of bias was assessed using SYRCLE. GRADE approach was used to evaluate evidence quality. Revman was applied to analyze all the data. Subgroup, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

A total of 62 articles were eligible with low to moderate quality, including 2158 samples from 10 different animal species across 27 surgical procedures. Barbed suture exhibited a significant reduction in suture time, limited change in Cross-Sectional Area (CSA), and decreased instances of tissue disruption (all P <0.05). Subgroup analyses, considering both clinical and research significance, indicated that barbed sutures might cause more specific adverse events and demonstrate suboptimal performance of physical properties/reliability. Meta-regression suggested that heterogeneity resulted from variations in studies and animal models.

CONCLUSION

Although barbed suture demonstrated superiority in numerous surgeries for time efficiency, its safety and physical properties/reliability might be influenced by diverse preclinical models, sutures' brand, surgeries, and anatomical sites. Further evaluation, based on standardized and well-designed animal experiments, is essential for medical device development and applications in human beings.

Humeral Head Articular Cartilage Damage by a Retained Arthroscopic Suture Anchor Inserter in a College Athlete

Arthroscopic repair of the glenoid labrum has been shown to be a safe and effective method to address recurrent shoulder instability. However, suture anchor devices must be used appropriately and with caution to avoid postoperative complications such as prominence, migration, and loosening, which can result in intraarticular pathology postoperatively. We report a case of significant glenohumeral articular cartilage damage that occurred as a result of a retained broken suture anchor inserter after arthroscopic Bankart repair. This case demonstrates an uncommon but serious complication that can occur during the surgical insertion of suture anchors when performing arthroscopic labral repairs. Although rare, retained foreign bodies must also be considered in the differential of a symptomatic postoperative patient. Thus, postoperative radiographs are also of extreme importance in evaluating a patient with persistent pain and crepitus after surgical glenoid labral repair.

Imaging of traumatic shoulder injuries – Understanding the surgeon’s perspective

Imaging plays a key role in the assessment and management of traumatic shoulder injuries, and it is important to understand how the imaging details help guide orthopedic surgeons in determining the role for surgical treatment. Imaging is also crucial in preoperative planning, the longitudinal assessment after surgery and the identification of complications after treatment. This review discusses the mechanisms of injury, key imaging findings, therapeutic options and associated complications for the most common shoulder injuries, tailored to the orthopedic surgeon’s perspective.

Repair integrity and functional outcomes of arthroscopic repair in chronic anterior shoulder instability: single-loaded versus double-loaded single-row repair

INTRODUCTION

This study compared the clinical outcome and repair integrity of single-loaded and double-loaded single-row arthroscopic repair of chronic anterior shoulder instability.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty consecutive chronic anterior shoulder instability cases treated by arthroscopic labral repair were included. A single-loaded single-row technique was used in the first 25 consecutive shoulders, and a double-loaded single-row technique was used in the next 25 consecutive shoulders. The number of suture anchors was 4 in the shoulders that underwent single-loaded repair and 3 in the shoulders that underwent double-loaded repair. 42 shoulders (84.0%) followed up clinical outcomes were evaluated a minimum 2 years (mean 28.5 months; range 24-46) postoperatively. The postoperative labral repair integrity was evaluated by MDCT-arthrogram at a minimum 6 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

At the final follow-up, the average UCLA, ASES, Constant, Rowe score, VAS pain score, and VAS for instability scores improved significantly, to 33.05, 92.33, 89.05, 94.86, 0.90 and 0.52, respectively, in the single-loaded group and to 32.19, 90.10, 89.05, 94.52, 0.90, and 0.86, respectively, in the double-loaded group. The clinical scores improved in both groups postoperatively (all P < 0.05); however, there was no significant difference between the two groups at final follow-up (P = 0.414, 0.508, 1.000, 0.917, 1.000, and 0.470, respectively). The re-tear rate was 2 (9.5%) in the shoulders that underwent single-loaded repair and 3 (14.3%) in the shoulders that underwent double-loaded repair; this difference was statistically not significant (P = 0.634).

CONCLUSION

The double-loaded single-row technique resulted in comparable clinical outcomes, and re-tear rate compared with the single-loaded single-row technique in chronic anterior shoulder instability at short-term follow-up. Number of used suture anchor in double-loaded single-row technique was fewer than that of single-loaded single-row technique.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Comparative retrospective study, level III.

Comparison between all-suture and biocomposite anchors in the arthroscopic treatment of traumatic anterior shoulder instability: A retrospective cohort study

Purpose

Suture anchors have revolutionized arthroscopic surgery, enabling direct soft tissue-to-bone repair. There are many types of anchors still used in arthroscopic shoulder operations. We sought to compare the clinical outcome of all-suture and biocomposite anchors when used in arthroscopic Bankart repair for patients suffering from anterior shoulder instability.

Methods

A single-center retrospective cohort study of 30 patients (mean age: 26.6 years, SD: 8.8 years, male/female ratio: 5/1, mean follow up: 28 months, SD: 23.8, range: 12-92) with anterior shoulder instability was conducted. Patients were divided into 2 groups based upon the type of suture anchors used for the Bankart repair: group A (14 patients) used only all-suture anchors and group B (16 patients) used only biocomposite anchors. Outcomes reported were postoperative dislocations, positive shoulder apprehension test, self-reported sense of shoulder instability, return to activities of daily living, return to sports, patient satisfaction and complications. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) used were the Rowe Score for Instability, Constant Shoulder Score, Walch Duplay Score, The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Shoulder Score, Oxford Shoulder Instability Score and external rotation at 90° of arm abduction, external rotation at 0° of arm abduction, forward flexion, abduction, adduction and internal rotation.

Results

Rates of postoperative shoulder dislocation demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (p > .05). Four postoperative dislocations happened, two in each group (14.3% and 12.5% for all suture only and biocomposite only groups, respectively), with three of them being traumatic. In addition, no significant differences were observed amongst groups regarding shoulder apprehension test (group A: 85.7% vs. group B: 93.8%), sense of shoulder instability (7.1% vs. 6.3%), return to activities of daily living (group A: 85.7% vs. group B: 93.8%), return to sports (group A: 85.7% vs. group B: 87.5%), patient satisfaction (moderate level: group A 21.4% vs. group B 12.5%), and PROMs.

Conclusion

The short-term failure rate and clinical/functional outcomes of arthroscopic Bankart repair using all-suture anchors is similar to the use of biocompatible anchors.

Level of evidence

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Arthroscopic glenoid labral lesion repair using all-suture anchor for traumatic anterior shoulder instability: short-term results

BACKGROUND

This study presents the preliminary clinical results of arthroscopic glenoid labral lesion repair using all-suture anchors in the treatment of recurrent traumatic anterior shoulder instability.

METHODS

Seventy patients who underwent arthroscopic shoulder stabilization for traumatic anterior shoulder instability were evaluated in this single center-based retrospective study. Patients with a glenoid defect greater than 20%, off-track engaging Hills-Sachs lesion, multidirectional instability, and generalized ligamentous laxity were excluded. The 62 included patients treated with arthroscopic glenoid labral lesion repair using all-suture anchors were evaluated. The Rowe and Constant scores were used to assess the results.

RESULTS

We evaluated 62 patients with a mean age of 26.7 ± 12 years. The mean Rowe and Constant scores were 35 ± 7.2 and 65 ± 6.3, respectively, preoperatively and increased to 93.6 ± 5.3 and 92 ± 4.3, respectively, postoperatively at the mean follow-up of 28.8 months (range, 24-48 months) (P < .001). The redislocation rate was 8.1%. Of the patients, 91.9% had good to excellent clinical scores. Younger age and contact sports were associated with a higher risk of recurrent dislocation (P = .012 and P = .041, respectively). The postoperative functional results were not significantly correlated with the findings concerning the number of dislocations, time until surgery, degree of anterior translation, and number of anchors.

CONCLUSION

The use of all-suture anchors for arthroscopic glenoid labral lesion repair for the treatment of recurrent traumatic anterior shoulder instability yields satisfactory clinical results and is a safe and effective option.

Glenoid Bone Reaction to All-Soft Suture Anchors Used for Shoulder Labral Repairs

BACKGROUND

All-soft suture anchors (ASSAs) are commonly used for shoulder labral repair and capsulorrhaphy in patients with shoulder instability. While these anchors may have some specific advantages over other types of suture anchors, little is known about the prevalence and time-dependence of bone cyst formation and tunnel expansion after implantation of ASSAs. The aim of this study was to quantify the proportions of cyst formation and tunnel expansion around ASSAs and to characterize and test for differences in abnormalities observed at different postoperative time points.

METHODS

Thirty patients who were treated with arthroscopic shoulder stabilization surgery with ASSAs (1.4 mm; JuggerKnot, Biomet) underwent a computed tomography (CT) scan of the operatively treated shoulder at 1 month (10 patients), 6 months (10 patients), or 12 months (10 patients) postoperatively. Demographic and operative data were collected, and CT scans were evaluated for cyst formation, tunnel expansion, and tunnel volume measured in cubic millimeters. Statistical analyses were performed to detect differences in these outcomes among the follow-up groups. All shoulders were stable at all time points of the study, and there were no incidents of recurrent instability during the study period.

RESULTS

Ninety-one suture anchors were evaluated in 30 patients. Tunnel expansion was identified in the large majority of patients in the 6-month and 12-month follow-up groups, with a significant increase in these proportions compared with the 1-month follow-up group (p = 0.002). Mean tunnel volumes also significantly increased over the study period (p < 0.001). The presence of cyst formation was negligible in all 3 follow-up cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated low rates of cyst formation but a significantly increased tunnel volume 6 and 12 months after shoulder labral surgery with ASSAs. There was no association with the initial tunnel location. Additional well-controlled studies with longer follow-up are needed to identify potential associations among tunnel expansion, intraoperative technique, and clinical outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Analysis of glenoid inter-anchor distance with an all-suture anchor system

Background

All-suture anchors used in arthroscopic shoulder stabilization employ small diameter anchors, which allow greater placement density on narrow surfaces such as the glenoid. There is no consensus in the literature about how close to one another two anchors may be implanted.

Purpose

The purpose of the present study is to compare the strength characteristics of two all-suture anchors placed in cadaveric human glenoid at variable distances to one another, in order to determine the minimum distance required for optimal strength.

Methods

Twelve fresh-frozen human cadaveric glenoids were implanted with 1.4 mm all-suture anchors at varying inter-anchor distances. Each glenoid was used for four tests, for a total of 48 tests. Anchors were implanted adjacent to one another or with 2, 3, or 5 mm bone bridges between pilot holes. The glenoids then underwent pullout testing using a test frame with a 5N preload followed by displacement of 12.5 mm/s. The primary outcomes were stiffness, failure strength, and ultimate strength.

Results

Stiffness was 13.52 ± 3.8, 17.97 ± 5.02, 17.59 ± 4.65 and 18.95 ± 4.67 N/mm for the adjacent, 2, 3, and 5 mm treatment groups, respectively. The adjacent group had a significantly lower stiffness compared to the other treatment groups. Failure strength was 48.68 ± 20.64, 76.16 ± 23.78, 73.19 ± 35.83 and 87.04 ± 34.67 N for the adjacent, 2, 3, and 5 mm treatment groups, respectively. The adjacent group had a significantly lower failure strength compared to the other treatment groups. Ultimate strength was also measured to be 190.59 ± 140.93, 268.7 ± 115.1, 283.23 ± 118.43, and 291.28 ± 118.24 for the adjacent, 2, 3, and 5 mm treatment groups, respectively.

Conclusions

This biomechanical study provides evidence that 1.4 mm all-suture anchors demonstrate similar strength characteristics when placed at least 2 mm or greater from one another. When 1.4 mm all-suture anchors were placed adjacent to one another, there was an observed decrease in failure strength and stiffness.

Clinical relevance

This study suggests that 1.4 mm all-suture anchors may be placed as close as 2 mm to one another while preserving strength characteristics.

Effect of Additional Sutures per Suture Anchor in Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Review of Single-loaded Versus Double-loaded Suture Anchors

PURPOSE

To directly compare single-loaded suture anchors (SSA) with double-loaded suture anchors (DSA) to help surgeons optimize the operative technique, time, and cost of Bankart repairs.

METHODS

A literature review was performed using the PubMed and SCOPUS databases. Studies that directly compared SSA and DSA for Bankart repairs, or indirectly compared them by collecting relevant data despite a different objective, were included.

RESULTS

A total of two studies were included, both of which were cadaveric laboratory studies. A total of 28 shoulders were tested. Tests conducted include loading to failure and cyclic loading. One study found SSA to be biomechanically equivalent to DSA, and one found DSA to be superior.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on limited cadaveric study, DSA are at least equivalent biomechanically to SSA, and may be superior. By using DSA, surgeons create repair constructs that are as strong as, or stronger than, those made with SSA, but with fewer anchors. This reduces the amount of holes drilled and implants placed in the glenoid, while also minimizing cost.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Quantifying the benefit of additional sutures in a suture anchor can help optimize the quality of repair, time, and cost in arthroscopic shoulder repair.

Biomechanical Evaluation of Suture Anchor Versus Transosseous Tunnel Quadriceps Tendon Repair Techniques

PURPOSE

To evaluate the biomechanical fixation strength of suture anchor and transosseous tunnel repair of the quadriceps tendon in a standardized cadaveric repair model.

METHODS

Twelve "patella-only" specimens were used. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry measurement was performed to ensure equal bone quality amongst groups. Specimens were randomly assigned to either a suture anchor repair of quadriceps tendon group (n = 6) or a transosseous tunnel repair group (n = 6). Suture type and repair configuration were equivalent. After the respective procedures were performed, each patella was mounted into a gripping jig. Tensile load was applied at a rate of 0.1 mm/s up to 100 N after which cyclic loading was applied at a rate of 1 Hz between magnitudes of 50 to 150 N, 50 to 200 N, 50 to 250 N, and tensile load at a rate of 0.1 mm/s until failure. Outcome measures included load to failure, displacement at 1st 100 N load, and displacement after each 10th cycle of loading.

RESULTS

The measured cyclic displacement to the first 100 N, 50 to 150 N, 50 to 200 N, and 50 to 250 N was significantly less for suture anchors than transosseous tunnels. There was no statistically significant difference in ultimate load to failure between the 2 groups (P = .40). Failure mode for all suture anchors except one was through the soft tissue. Failure mode for all transosseous specimens but one was pulling the repair through the transosseous tunnel.

CONCLUSIONS

Suture anchor quadriceps tendon repairs had significantly decreased gapping during cyclic loading, but no statistically significant difference in ultimate load to failure when compared with transosseous tunnel repairs. Although suture anchor quadriceps tendon repair appears to be a biomechanically superior construct, a clinical study is needed to confirm this technique as a viable alternative to gold standard transosseous techniques.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Although in vivo studies are needed, these results support the suture anchor technique as a viable alternative to transosseous repair of the quadriceps tendon.

Use of carbon-fiber-reinforced composite implants in orthopedic surgery

Carbon-fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone implants offer several benefits over traditional metal implants. Their radiolucent property permits improved, artifact-free radiographic imaging. Their lower modulus of elasticity better matches that of bone. Their fatigue strength is greater than most metal implants. This article reviews the use of these implants in orthopedic surgery, including treatment of conditions involving the spine, trauma, tumor, and infection.