Knotless PEEK and double-loaded biodegradable suture anchors ensure comparable clinical outcomes in the arthroscopic treatment of traumatic anterior shoulder instability: a prospective randomized study

No Clear Difference in Clinical Outcomes Between Knotted and Knotless Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The objective of the current study was to analyze if the arthroscopic Bankart repair using a knotless suture anchor has a better functional outcome than the conventional knot-tying Bankart repair.

METHODS

Comprehensive literature search was done in Pubmed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane databases in May 2023. Studies comparing the clinical outcome of Bankart repair using knotless and knot-tying techniques were included in the study. In vitro, animal, and level 4 and 5 studies were excluded. The risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCT) was calculated according to the RoB 2 tool, and for non-randomized studies, MINORS criteria were used. Statistical analysis was done using RevMan software.

RESULTS

A total of nine studies, including two RCT and seven non-randomized comparative studies involving 720 patients, were included in the systematic review. The ROWE score ranged 81.7 to 94.3 in the knot-tying and 86 to 96.3 in the knotless group. VAS scores at final follow-up ranged between 0.1 to 1.7 in the knot-tying and 0.7 to 2.5 in the knotless group. The rate of redislocation, subluxation, and revision surgery in the knot-tying group ranged from 0 to 14.7%, 16.7 to 29.7%, and 1.6 to 17.6%, respectively, while that in the knotless group ranged from 2.4 to 23.8%, 7.4 to 22.2%, and 2.4 to 19%, respectively. The mean external rotation was 54 to 65 degrees in the knot-tying and 61 to 99 in the knotless group. The mean forward-flexion was 164 to 172 in the knot-tying and 165 to 174 in the knotless group. Our subjective synthesis doesn't reveal any difference in the outcome between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The available literature does not demonstrate a clear difference in functional outcomes, residual pain, and rate of complications like redislocation, subluxation and revision surgery between Bankart repair performed with knotted and knotless anchors.

Knotless Bioabsorbable Anchors Placed on the Glenoid Face for Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

BACKGROUND

Quantitative analysis of the glenoid face knotless-type anchor placement for arthroscopic Bankart repair has not been reported.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical and radiologic outcomes after arthroscopic Bankart repair using knotless bioabsorbable anchors depending on the anchor location.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series, Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A total of 124 patients (113 men and 11 women; age, 25.6 ± 7.5 years; follow-up time, 46.5 ± 18.2 months [range, 6.2-75.5 months]) who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair with the bioabsorbable knotless anchor between 2017 and 2021 were included in this study. Among them, 118 patients were observed for >2 years (mean, 48.2 ± 16.8 months [range, 24-75.5 months]) and were analyzed for final clinical and radiologic outcomes. Using postoperative 6-month magnetic resonance imaging, remnant glenoid (%) and labral height were measured. Shoulder range of motion (ROM), radiographic osteoarthritic change, dislocation, apprehension test, and return to sports were recorded. Three groups were established based on the remnant glenoid, which represented the percentage of the exposed glenoid anteroposterior diameter to the original diameter using the best-fit circle method-group A: lower quartile; group B: interquartile; and group C: upper quartile-and variables were analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, the remnant glenoid was 57% ± 6.4% (range, 41.5%-75%) after the surgery. Osteoarthritic change, dislocations, and positive apprehension tests were observed in 5 (4.2%), 4 (3.4%), and 12 (10.2%) patients, respectively. A total of 34 (28.8%) and 64 (54.2%) patients could return to sports without and with restrictions, respectively. Comparing groups A, B, and C, postoperative labral height (7 ± 1, 7 ± 2, and 7 ± 1 mm; P = .623), final osteoarthritic change (1, 4, and 0; P = .440), positive apprehension tests (5, 5, and 2; P = .387), and return to sports (complete/restricted/unable, 6/18/5, 19/29/11, 9/17/4; P = .769) were not different. All ROM were similar across the groups (all P > .054), except for external rotation (ER) at postoperative 6 months (41.3°± 12.8°; 50.2°± 18.5°; and 49.8°± 15.2°; P = .050). However, ER after 1 year was similar across the groups (all P > .544). In further analysis, patients with positive apprehension tests had lower labral height compared with others (5 [4-6] mm and 7 [6-8] mm; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

In arthroscopic Bankart repair, the placement of knotless bioabsorbable anchors on the glenoid face, combined with the remplissage procedure or rotator interval closure, resulted in a low recurrence rate and moderate return to sports. However, most patients had some restrictions in returning to sports. Moreover, this technique was not associated with postoperative arthritis and shoulder stiffness, including ER deficit, which was not affected by the position of the anchor on the glenoid face for a minimum 2-year follow-up.

Absorbable implants in sport medicine and arthroscopic surgery: A narrative review of recent development

Over the past two decades, advances in arthroscopic and minimally invasive surgical techniques have led to significant growth in sports medicine surgery. Implants such as suture anchors, interference screws, and endo-buttons are commonly used in these procedures. However, traditional implants made of metal or inert materials are not absorbable, leading to complications that affect treatment outcomes. To address this issue, absorbable materials with excellent mechanical properties, good biocompatibility, and controlled degradation rates have been developed and applied in clinical practice. These materials include absorbable polymers, absorbable bioceramics, and absorbable metals. In this paper, we will provide a comprehensive summary of these absorbable materials from the perspective of clinicians, and discuss their clinical applications and related research in sport medicine.