Literature DB >> 33867751

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

Ioannis Pantekidis1, Michael-Alexander Malahias1, Stefania Kokkineli1, Emmanouil Brilakis1, Emmanouil Antonogiannakis1.   

Abstract

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.
© 2021 Professor P K Surendran Memorial Education Foundation. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  All-suture anchors; Arthroscopy; Bankart repair; Biocomposite anchors; Shoulder instability

Year:  2021        PMID: 33867751      PMCID: PMC8040112          DOI: 10.1016/j.jor.2021.03.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop        ISSN: 0972-978X


  43 in total

Review 1.  Tissue anchor use in arthroscopic glenohumeral surgery.

Authors:  David R Diduch; John Scanelli; Marc Tompkins; Matthew D Milewski; Eric Carson; Shen-Ying Richard Ma
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 3.020

Review 2.  Bioabsorbable anchors in glenohumeral shoulder surgery.

Authors:  Shane J Nho; Matthew T Provencher; Shane T Seroyer; Anthony A Romeo
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2009-02-06       Impact factor: 4.772

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

Authors:  T Tompane; J Carney; W W Wu; K Nguyen-Ta; C Dewing; M Provencher; L McDonald; M Gibson; L LeClere
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2018-07-18       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  The assessment of shoulder instability. The development and validation of a questionnaire.

Authors:  J Dawson; R Fitzpatrick; A Carr
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1999-05

5.  A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder.

Authors:  C R Constant; A H Murley
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1987-01       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 6.  Recurrent Instability After Arthroscopic Bankart Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Surgical Technical Factors.

Authors:  Landon Brown; Shane Rothermel; Rajat Joshi; Aman Dhawan
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2017-08-31       Impact factor: 4.772

7.  Arthroscopic revision Bankart repair: a prospective outcome study.

Authors:  Seung-Ho Kim; Kwon-Ick Ha; Young-Min Kim
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2002 May-Jun       Impact factor: 4.772

8.  Threshold scores for treatment success after arthroscopic bankart repair using Oxford Shoulder Instability Score, Constant-Murley Score, and UCLA shoulder score.

Authors:  Sheng Xu; Jerry Yongqiang Chen; Ying Hao; Chee Cheng Paul Chang; Denny Tjiauw Tjoen Lie
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2020-05-07

9.  Osteoconductive resorption characteristics of a novel biocomposite suture anchor material in rotator cuff repair.

Authors:  Jan Vonhoegen; Dominik John; Constanze Hägermann
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2019-01-09       Impact factor: 2.359

10.  The Tripod-Pulley Technique for Arthroscopic Remplissage in Engaging Hill-Sachs Lesions.

Authors:  Paolo Consigliere; Natasha Morrissey; Mohamed Imam; A Ali Narvani
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2017-09-25
View more
  1 in total

1.  No Difference Between Anchorless and Traditional Suture Anchors in Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Clinical Comparison.

Authors:  Lucas Haase; Kelsey Wise; Brandon Kelly; John Harris; Jeffrey Macalena
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-07-18
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.