INTRODUCTION: Rotator cuff tears are increasing with age. Does osteopenic bone have an influence on the pullout strength of suture anchors? MATERIALS AND METHODS: SPIRALOK 5.0 mm (DePuy Mitek), Super Revo 5 mm and UltraSorb (both ConMed Linvatec) suture anchors were tested in six osteopenic and six healthy human cadaveric humeri. Incremental cyclic loading was performed. The ultimate failure load, anchor displacement, and the mode of failure were recorded. RESULTS: In the non-osteopenic bone group, the absorbable SPIRALOK 5.0 mm achieved a significantly better pullout strength (274 N +/- 29 N, mean +/- SD) than the titanium anchor Super Revo 5 mm (188 N +/- 34 N, mean +/- SD), and the tilting anchor UltraSorb (192 N +/- 34 N, mean +/- SD). In the osteopenic bone group no significant difference in the pullout strength was found. The failure mechanisms, such as anchor pullout, rupture at eyelet, suture breakage and breakage of eyelet, varied between the anchors. CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrates that, in osteopenic bone, absorbable suture anchors do not have lower pullout strengths than metal anchors. In normal bone, the bioabsorbable anchor in this study even outperformed the non-absorbable anchor.
INTRODUCTION: Rotator cuff tears are increasing with age. Does osteopenic bone have an influence on the pullout strength of suture anchors? MATERIALS AND METHODS: SPIRALOK 5.0 mm (DePuy Mitek), Super Revo 5 mm and UltraSorb (both ConMed Linvatec) suture anchors were tested in six osteopenic and six healthy human cadaveric humeri. Incremental cyclic loading was performed. The ultimate failure load, anchor displacement, and the mode of failure were recorded. RESULTS: In the non-osteopenic bone group, the absorbable SPIRALOK 5.0 mm achieved a significantly better pullout strength (274 N +/- 29 N, mean +/- SD) than the titanium anchor Super Revo 5 mm (188 N +/- 34 N, mean +/- SD), and the tilting anchor UltraSorb (192 N +/- 34 N, mean +/- SD). In the osteopenic bone group no significant difference in the pullout strength was found. The failure mechanisms, such as anchor pullout, rupture at eyelet, suture breakage and breakage of eyelet, varied between the anchors. CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrates that, in osteopenic bone, absorbable suture anchors do not have lower pullout strengths than metal anchors. In normal bone, the bioabsorbable anchor in this study even outperformed the non-absorbable anchor.
Authors: Mehmet Gülecyüz; Hannes Bortolotti; Matthias Pietschmann; Andreas Ficklscherer; Thomas Niethammer; Björn Roßbach; Peter Müller Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2015-10-07 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Norman A Johanson; Jody Litrenta; Jay M Zampini; Frederic Kleinbart; Haviva M Goldman Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: P Boyer; C Bouthors; T Delcourt; O Stewart; F Hamida; G Mylle; P Massin Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2013-02-13 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Mariya Poukalova; Christopher M Yakacki; Robert E Guldberg; Angela Lin; Minn Saing; Scott D Gillogly; Ken Gall Journal: J Biomech Date: 2010-02-01 Impact factor: 2.712
Authors: Chlodwig Kirchhoff; Volker Braunstein; Stefan Milz; Christoph M Sprecher; Sonja Kirchhoff; Mathias Graw; Andreas B Imhoff; Stefan Hinterwimmer Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2012-11-13 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Mehmet F Güleçyüz; Michael Kraus-Petersen; Christian Schröder; Andreas Ficklscherer; Markus U Wagenhäuser; Christian Braun; Peter E Müller; Matthias F Pietschmann Journal: HSS J Date: 2017-10-17