Literature DB >> 24201901

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

Tim Dwyer1, Thomas L Willett2, Andrew P Dold3, Massimo Petrera4, David Wasserstein5, Danny B Whelan4,6, John S Theodoropoulos4,7.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical behavior of an all-suture glenoid anchor in comparison with a more conventional screw-in glenoid anchor, with regard to maximum load to failure and tensile displacement.
METHODS: All mechanical testing was performed using an Instron ElectroPuls E1000 mechanical machine, with a 10 N pre-load and displacement rate of 10 mm/min. Force-displacement curves were generated, with calculation of maximum load, maximum displacement, displacement at 50 N and stiffness. Pretesting of handset Y-Knots in bone analog models revealed low force displacement below 60 N of force. Subsequently, three groups of anchors were tested for pull out strength in bovine bone and cadaver glenoid bone: a bioabsorbable screw-in anchor (Bio Mini-Revo, ConMed Linvatec), a handset all-suture anchor (Y-Knot, ConMed Linvatec) and a 60 N pre-tensioned all-suture anchor (Y-Knot). A total of 8 anchors from each group was tested in proximal tibia of bovine bone and human glenoids (age range 50-90).
RESULTS: In bovine bone, the Bio Mini-Revo displayed greater maximum load to failure (206 ± 77 N) than both the handset (140 ± 51 N; P = 0.01) and the pre-tensioned Y-Knot (135 ± 46 N; P = 0.001); no significant difference was seen between the three anchor groups in glenoid bone. Compared to the screw-in anchors, the handset all-suture anchor displayed inferior fixation, early displacement and greater laxity in the bovine bone and cadaveric bone (P < 0.05). Pre-tensioning the all-suture anchor to 60 N eliminated this behavior in all bone models.
CONCLUSIONS: Handset Y-Knots display low force anchor displacement, which is likely due to slippage in the pilot hole. Pre-tensioning the Y-Knot to 60 N eliminates this behavior. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

Entities:  

Keywords:  All-suture anchor; Glenoid anchor; Y-Knot

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24201901     DOI: 10.1007/s00167-013-2760-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc        ISSN: 0942-2056            Impact factor:   4.342


  23 in total

1.  In situ force distribution in the glenohumeral joint capsule during anterior-posterior loading.

Authors:  R E Debski; E K Wong; S L Woo; M Sakane; F H Fu; J J Warner
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 3.494

2.  Fatigue performance of composite analogue femur constructs under high activity loading.

Authors:  Alexander C M Chong; Elizabeth A Friis; Gregory P Ballard; Peter J Czuwala; Francis W Cooke
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2007-03-28       Impact factor: 3.934

3.  A biomechanical analysis of capsular plication versus anchor repair of the shoulder: can the labrum be used as a suture anchor?

Authors:  Matthew T Provencher; Nikhil Verma; Elifho Obopilwe; Lina M Rincon; Jeremiah Tracy; Anthony A Romeo; Augustus Mazzocca
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2007-11-08       Impact factor: 4.772

4.  Biomechanical comparison of a knotless suture anchor with standard suture anchor in the repair of type II SLAP tears.

Authors:  Michael J Sileo; Steven J Lee; Ian J Kremenic; Karl Orishimo; Simon Ben-Avi; Malachy McHugh; Stephen J Nicholas
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2008-12-18       Impact factor: 4.772

5.  Mechanical properties of glenoid cancellous bone.

Authors:  Ibrahim Kalouche; Jérôme Crépin; Samir Abdelmoumen; David Mitton; Geneviève Guillot; Olivier Gagey
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2010-01-18       Impact factor: 2.063

6.  Glenoid bone architecture.

Authors:  L H Frich; A Odgaard; M Dalstra
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  1998 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.019

7.  Fatigue properties of suture anchors in anterior shoulder reconstructions: Mitek GII.

Authors:  M J Wetzler; A R Bartolozzi; M J Gillespie; C A Roth; M G Ciccotti; L Snyder-Mackler; M H Santare
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 4.772

8.  Pullout strength of knotless suture anchors.

Authors:  Brent P Leedle; Mark D Miller
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 4.772

9.  Interspecies differences in bone composition, density, and quality: potential implications for in vivo bone research.

Authors:  J Aerssens; S Boonen; G Lowet; J Dequeker
Journal:  Endocrinology       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 4.736

10.  Biomechanical analysis of pullout strengths of rotator cuff and glenoid anchors: 2011 update.

Authors:  F Alan Barber; Morley A Herbert; Onur Hapa; Jay H Rapley; Cameron A K Barber; James A Bynum; Scott A Hrnack
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 4.772

View more
  10 in total

1.  Arthroscopic Transtendinous Biceps Tenodesis With All-Suture Anchor.

Authors:  Chien-An Shih; Florence L Chiang; Chih-Kai Hong; Cheng-Wei Lin; Ping-Hui Wang; I-Ming Jou; Wei-Ren Su
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2017-06-05

2.  Subpectoral biceps tenodesis: a new technique using an all-suture anchor fixation.

Authors:  Wei-Ren Su; Florence Y Ling; Chih-Kai Hong; Chih-Hsun Chang; Cheng-Li Lin; I-Ming Jou
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-10-02       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  Double on-lay fixation using all suture-type anchor for subpectoral biceps tenodesis has favorable functional outcomes and leads to less cosmetic deformities than single on-lay fixation.

Authors:  Sung-Min Rhee; Ho Yeon Jeong; Kyunghan Ro; Samyak Pancholi; Yong Girl Rhee
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2019-08-13       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 4.  Biomaterials Used for Suture Anchors in Orthopedic Surgery.

Authors:  Chul-Hyun Cho; Ki-Cheor Bae; Du-Han Kim
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2021-08-17

5.  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

6.  Fixation methods and implants in shoulder stabilization: A historical perspective.

Authors:  Jonathan D Kramer; Sean Robinson; Eric Hohn; Connor Purviance; Eugene M Wolf
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2018-05-07

7.  The Effect of Torque Differences for All-Suture Anchor Fixation Strength: A Biomechanical Analysis.

Authors:  Lucca Lacheta; Jon Miles; Brenton Douglass; Peter Millett
Journal:  Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil       Date:  2021-02-25

8.  Conventional rotator cuff versus all-suture anchors-A biomechanical study focusing on the insertion angle in an unlimited cyclic model.

Authors:  Dimitris Ntalos; Kay Sellenschloh; Gerd Huber; Daniel Briem; Klaus Püschel; Michael M Morlock; Karl-Heinz Frosch; Florian Fensky; Till Orla Klatte
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-11-27       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Serial Changes in Perianchor Cysts Following Arthroscopic Labral Repair Using All-Suture Anchors.

Authors:  Jae-Hoo Lee; Jun-Seok Kang; In Park; Sang-Jin Shin
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2020-12-21

Review 10.  The Clinical and Biomechanical Performance of All-Suture Anchors: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Selim Ergün; Umut Akgün; F Alan Barber; Mustafa Karahan
Journal:  Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil       Date:  2020-05-28
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.