Literature DB >> 15650671

Pullout strength of knotless suture anchors.

Brent P Leedle1, Mark D Miller.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Suture anchors are used consistently for repairs of soft tissues, especially around the glenohumeral joint. These anchors can be used either arthroscopically or in an open procedure to anatomically restore the labrum and capsular tissues to the glenoid after avulsion injuries (Bankart lesion). The purpose of this study was to analyze the pullout strength of a new knotless suture anchor (Mitek Knotless Suture Anchor; Mitek, Norwood, MA) compared with 2 commercially available suture anchors that require knots to be tied (Mitek Panalok 3.5-mm Anchor and Mitek GII Quick Anchor). TYPE OF STUDY: Randomized cadaveric study.
METHODS: Three groups of 10 anchors were tested on 15 fresh-frozen cadaveric glenoids. Two anchors were affixed to the anterior glenoid in subchondral bone, 1 each from 2 groups. In this way, the variance of bone density among groups was minimized. The anchors requiring knots were fixed to the glenoid and tied to a ring using a Duncan knot with 3 half-hitches alternating posts. The Knotless Anchor was looped through the ring and anchored into the glenoid as described by the manufacturer. All constructs were then tested for tensile strength on an Instron machine (Canton, MA) using a crosshead speed of 200 mm/min. Ultimate failure was defined as complete failure of the construct (either suture breakage or anchor pullout). Data were then analyzed for statistical significance using analysis of variance analysis among the 3 groups, and a 2-tailed t test for statistical significance among groups.
RESULTS: The average failure under tensile load for the GII, Panalok, and Knotless Anchors were 471.5 N, 432.8 N, and 650.0 N, respectively. Statistical analysis showed a statistical difference between the Knotless Anchor and the GII and Panalok sutures ( P = .02). Two-tailed t tests between the Knotless Anchor and the GII or Panalok Anchors were also significant (P = .02 and P = .02, respectively). Observations included a large standard deviation within groups. This is thought to result from the variation in bone density because markedly lower tensile loads were recorded for those anchors that pulled out from the bone before suture failure.
CONCLUSIONS: The Knotless Suture Anchor is a statistically stronger construct with respect to tensile loads. It appears to be a viable option for any type of soft-tissue repair around the glenoid. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Because the knot in suture repair is consistently the weakest point in the construct and because of the difficulty in tying knots arthroscopically, the Knotless Suture Anchor appears to be a stronger and easier method for both arthroscopic and open Bankart repair, with or without capsular shift.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15650671     DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2004.08.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arthroscopy        ISSN: 0749-8063            Impact factor:   4.772


  19 in total

1.  Biomechanical comparison of three techniques for fixation of tibial avulsion fractures of the anterior cruciate ligament.

Authors:  Yong In; Dai-Soon Kwak; Chan-Woong Moon; Seung-Ho Han; Nam-Yong Choi
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-10-11       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Superior labral anterior posterior lesions of the shoulder: Current diagnostic and therapeutic standards.

Authors:  Dominik Popp; Volker Schöffl
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2015-10-18

3.  Suture slippage in knotless suture anchors resulting in subacromial-subdeltoid bursitis.

Authors:  Mohammad Reza Hayeri; Daniel T Keefe; Eric Y Chang
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2016-01-06       Impact factor: 2.199

4.  [Primary stability of the capsule-labrum complex after reconstruction with the Mitek Bioknotless anchor system in human cadaver models].

Authors:  E Erdeljac; E Steinhauser; U Schreiber; A B Imhoff
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 1.000

5.  Maximum load to failure and tensile displacement of an all-suture glenoid anchor compared with a screw-in glenoid anchor.

Authors:  Tim Dwyer; Thomas L Willett; Andrew P Dold; Massimo Petrera; David Wasserstein; Danny B Whelan; John S Theodoropoulos
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2013-11-08       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  A Biomechanical Comparison of Varying Base Knot Configurations with Different Overhand/Underhand Combinations of Reversing Half-Hitches on Alternating Posts After Basic Instructional Training.

Authors:  Heather A Evin; Tyler T Bilden; Benjamin C Noonan; Alexander Cm Chong
Journal:  Iowa Orthop J       Date:  2019

7.  Strength of Resistance to "Flip" the Tightened Half-Hitches of an Arthroscopic Knot.

Authors:  Alexander Cm Chong; Pie Pichetsurnthorn; Daniel J Prohaska
Journal:  Iowa Orthop J       Date:  2017

8.  A criterion based sling weaning progression (sweap) and outcomes following shoulder arthroscopic surgery in an active duty military population.

Authors:  Justin M Hire; Joshua E Pniewski; Michelle L Dickston; Jeremy M Jacobs; Terry L Mueller; Brian E Abell; John A Bojescul
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2014-04

9.  Arthroscopic knotless rotator cuff repair: Factors associated with construct selection and recent trends from a manual review of 1617 cases.

Authors:  Sarav S Shah; Aalok Shah; Vivek Chadayammuri; Marlena McGill; Nicole Wei; David V Tuckman; Nicholas A Sgaglione
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2018-01-31

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

Authors:  Jonathan D Kramer; Sean Robinson; Connor Purviance; William Montgomery
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2018-02-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.