Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Computed Tomography Analysis for Tunnel Diameter After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair With the All-Suture Anchor and the Biodegradable Suture Anchor

Safety and efficacy of second-generation all-suture anchors in labral tear arthroscopic repairs: prospective, multicenter, 1-year follow-up study

Background

This study's primary aim was to assess the safety and performance of second-generation all-soft suture anchors following arthroscopic labral tear repair.

Methods

This prospective, multicenter study was conducted by 6 surgeons at 6 sites in Europe and the United States between November 2018 and August 2020. Patients who required shoulder arthroscopic repair, for a range of labral injuries, were treated with a second-generation all-soft suture anchor. The primary outcome was clinical success rate (percentage of patients without signs of failure and/or reintervention) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included clinical success rate at 12 months, intraoperative anchor deployment success rate, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at 6 and 12 months, including visual analog scale (VAS) pain assessment, VAS satisfaction assessment, EQ-5D-5L Index Score, EQ-5D-5L VAS Health Score, Rowe Shoulder Score for Instability, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, and Constant-Murley Shoulder Score. Serious adverse events and serious adverse device effects were collected throughout the study.

Results

Forty-one patients were enrolled (mean age, 28.2 years; 87.8% male, 12.2% female). Clinical success was achieved in 27/28 and 31/32 patients at 6 months and 12 months, respectively. Anchor deployment had a 100% success rate. Significant improvements over baseline were reported for all PROs except Constant-Murley Shoulder (6 months) and VAS Satisfaction Score (12 months). One patient experienced 1 serious adverse event and 1 patient experienced 1 serious adverse device effect.

Conclusion

Second-generation all-soft suture anchors used in this study demonstrated a high clinical success rate, a favorable safety profile, and patients exhibited significant improvement in PROs.

Pain scores and functional outcomes of patients with shoulder labral repair using all-suture anchors versus conventional anchors

HYPOTHESIS/PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare PROMs in patients undergoing anterior glenoid labral repair using all-suture versus conventional anchors. We hypothesized PROMs would be similar between groups.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of the Arthrex Global Surgical Outcomes System (SOS) database, querying patients who underwent arthroscopic glenoid labral repair between 01/01/2015 and 12/31/2020. Patients aged 18-100, who had isolated glenoid labrum repair with at least 12-month follow-up were included. The visual analog pain scale (VAS), Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, Veteran's RAND 12-items health survey, single assessment numeric evaluation and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES) were compared preoperatively, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years postoperatively in patients who received all-suture anchors versus conventional anchors in the setting of anterior glenoid labrum repair. Our primary aim was comparison of PROMs between patients receiving all-suture versus conventional suture anchors. Secondarily, a sub-analysis was performed comparing outcomes based on anchor utilization for patients with noted anterior instability.

RESULTS

We evaluated 566 patients, 54 patients receiving all-suture anchors and 512 patients receiving conventional anchors. At two-year follow-up there was no significant difference between the two groups in PROMs. In a sub-analysis of isolated anterior labrum repair, there was an improvement in ASES (P = 0.034) and VAS (P = 0.039) with the all-suture anchor at two-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

All-suture anchors provide similar or superior pain and functional outcome scores up to 2 years postoperatively compared to conventional anchors.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

As all-suture anchors gain popularity among surgeons, this is the largest scale study to date validating their use in the setting of glenoid labrum repair. Institutional Review Board (IRB): IRB202102550.

Retrospective Comparative Analysis of Clinical and Functional Outcome After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair using All-Suture Anchor and Metal Anchor

Introduction

Both knotted all suture anchors and metal anchors are used for arthroscopic Bankart repair. We retrospectively evaluated and compared clinical and functional outcomes after arthroscopic Bankart repair using the knotted all-suture anchors and knotted metal anchors.

Materials and methods

In a retrospective cohort analysis, patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair without any concomitant additional lesion repair using either all-suture anchors or metal anchors, between January 2015 and May 2018 were identified. Their pre- and post-operative functional and clinical outcomes were compared using Rowe and WOSI scores. The recurrence rate in the two groups was also compared.

Results

A total of 41 patients in all suture anchors group and 47 in the metal anchors group were identified as per inclusion and exclusion criteria. The demographic profile of both groups was comparable. There was no significant difference in clinical and functional outcome between the two suture anchor groups as per Rowe (pre-operative 40.13+6.51 vs 38.09+6.24 and post-operative 2 years 93.28+7.09 vs 92.55+9.2) and WOSI (pre-operative 943.05+216.64 vs 977.55+165.46 and post-operative 2 years 278.21+227.56 vs 270.94+186.25) scores. There was a significant improvement in both the groups between preoperative and post-operative ROWE and WOSI scores at 6 months and 2 years follow-up as compared to pre-operative scores (p<0.001). Re-dislocation rates were also comparable (4.8% vs 6.3%).

Conclusion

All-suture anchors showed comparable clinical and functional results as the metal anchors for arthroscopic Bankart repair at two-year follow-up.

All-Suture Anchor vs. Knotless Suture Anchor for the Treatment of Anterior Shoulder Instability-A Prospective Cohort Study

All-suture or soft-anchors (SA) represent a new generation of suture anchor technology with a completely suture-based system. This study's objective was to assess Juggerknot® SA, for arthroscopic Bankart repair in recurrent shoulder instability (RSI), and to compare it to a commonly performed knotless anchor (KA) technique (Pushlock®). In a prospective cohort study, 30 consecutive patients scheduled for reconstruction of the capsulolabral complex without substantial glenoid bone loss were included and operated on using the SA technique. A historical control group was operated on using the KA technique for the same indication. Clinical examinations were performed preoperatively and 12 and 24 months postoperatively. RSI and WOSI at 24 months were the co-primary endpoints, evaluated with logistic and linear regression. A total of 5 out of 30 (16.7%) patients suffered from RSI in the SA group, one out of 31 (3.2%) in the KA group (adjusted odds ratio = 10.12, 95% CI: 0.89-115.35), and 13.3% in the SA group and 3.2% in the KAgroup had a revision. The median WOSI in the SA group was lower than in the KA group (81% vs. 95%) (adjusted regression coefficient = 10.12, 95% CI: 0.89-115.35). Arthroscopic capsulolabral repair for RSI using either the SA or KA technique led to satisfying clinical outcomes. However, there is a tendency for higher RSI and lower WOSI following the SA technique.

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.

How many anchors to use in arthroscopic Bankart repairs? A biomechanical study of postage-stamp glenoid fractures

BACKGROUND

Deciding how many anchors to use in a Bankart repair is challenging because of the desire to enhance stability while avoiding a postage-stamp fracture of the glenoid rim.

METHODS

This controlled laboratory study investigated load to fracture of the anterior glenoid rim after drilling holes of varying number and diameter and inserting anchors of 2 different types and sizes, with and without perforation of the medial cortex of the glenoid, creating postage-stamp fractures using a metallic humeral head that was compressed against the anterior glenoid rim. A destructive model with a servohydraulic load frame was used to test 46 synthetic scapulae with compressive strength and elastic modulus similar to that of a human glenoid. Load to fracture of the intact glenoid was compared with groups with a varying number of anchor holes of different diameters, with anchors of different sizes and types, and with anchors perforating or not perforating the glenoid medial cortex. The percentage of force to fracture an intact specimen was used to identify relative risk of fracture: low risk >75%, moderate risk 75%-50%, and high risk <50% of intact load.

RESULTS

The load to fracture of intact glenoids was 1276 ± 42 N. Loads decreased linearly as the number of holes drilled on the glenoid rim increased. Compared with the 1.6-mm group, the 3.0-mm group had significantly lower glenoid rim strength in specimens with 4, 5, and 7 holes (P = .013, .032, and .045, respectively). All-suture anchors in 1.6-mm holes did not alter the glenoid rim strength, and up to 5 anchors were associated with low risk of fracture. Load to fracture was significantly higher with 3.0-mm rigid core bioabsorbable anchors with 4 anchors (1081 ± 6 N) compared with the 4-hole condition (838 ± 107 N; P = .033). Perforating the glenoid medial cortex with five 1.6-mm anchors significantly weakened the glenoid rim to 58% of intact (P = .012). Perforating the medial cortex weakened the glenoid rim to 52% and 42% (P < .001 for both) of intact in the 3.0-mm 4-anchor and 5-anchor constructions, constituting moderate and high risk of fracture, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Up to five 1.6-mm all-suture anchors and four 3.0-mm bioabsorbable rigid-core anchors were associated with low risk of fracture of the glenoid rim. Smaller diameter all-suture anchors best preserved structural integrity of the glenoid rim, whereas tunnel enlargement and perforation of the glenoid medial cortex were associated with moderate or high risk of a postage-stamp fracture.

Fixation strength in arthroscopic labral repair of the hip: A head-to-head comparison of the biomechanical performance of a biocompatible vs. all-suture anchor in the setting of acetabuloplasty

Much is known about the biomechanical performance of various types of suture anchors commonly used for labral fixation in the shoulder; however, similar studies in the hip are less common. We sought to compare all-suture and polyether ether ketone small-diameter anchors in the setting of labral repair during hip arthroscopy, with and without acetabuloplasty. We hypothesized that the biomechanical properties of the all-suture group when compared to polyether ether ketone anchors would be similar amongst native acetabula and significantly less following acetabuloplasty and that pullout forces would be reduced in the anterior and inferior regions of the acetabulum compared to the superior region. Bone density was measured in nine matched pairs of fresh-frozen cadaveric acetabula in the superior, anterosuperior, and anterior regions. Acetabuloplasty was performed in all three regions, while the contralateral acetabulum was left in situ as a control. Suture anchors were placed such that one each of two different types was placed within each region. Specimens were tested in cyclic fatigue and loaded to failure. The all-suture group had significantly higher cyclic displacement compared to the polyether ether ketone, but there was no significant difference in ultimate load, regardless of acetabuloplasty. Amongst all non-resected specimens, the lowest bone density was observed consistently in the inferior region. Our results indicate that, with or without acetabuloplasty, a small-diameter polyether ether ketone anchor appears to be more stable than an all-suture anchor, which needs to be set first.

A comprehensive comparison and evaluation of surgical techniques for anterior shoulder instability: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Anterior shoulder instability is a common clinical problem; however, conflicting evidence exists regarding optimal treatment algorithms. We perform a comparative analysis of stabilization techniques used for recurrent anterior shoulder instability to identify the one associated with the lowest rate of recurrent instability. We additionally explore how glenoid bone loss and osseus lesions affect recurrence rates.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for clinical studies comparing surgical techniques for anterior shoulder instability. Two team members independently assessed all potential studies for eligibility and extracted data. Each included study underwent a risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias summary tool. The primary outcome of interest was the rate of recurrent instability, which underwent a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Additional analyses were performed relating to the degree of glenoid bone loss and the presence of osseous lesions.

RESULTS

Of 2699 studies screened, 52 studies with 4209 patients were included. Patients who underwent open Latarjet demonstrated the overall lowest rate of recurrent instability [log odds ratio (LOR) 1.93], whereas patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair demonstrated the highest (LOR 2.87). When glenoid bone loss was 10% to 20%, open Latarjet had significantly lower recurrent instability (P = .0016) compared to arthroscopic Bankart repair. When glenoid bone loss increased from 0%-10% to 10%-20%, arthroscopic Bankart repair had a significantly increased rate of recurrence (P = .021). In the presence of an engaging Hill-Sachs lesion, both open Latarjet (P = .01) and arthroscopic Bankart with remplissage (P = .029) had significantly reduced recurrence rates compared to arthroscopic Bankart repair. Finally, regardless of procedure, the presence of a Hill-Sachs or bony Bankart lesion was associated with an increased risk of recurrent instability (r = 0.44, P = .0003, and r = 0.40, P = .006, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The open Latarjet has the overall lowest recurrent instability and significantly lower compared to arthroscopic Bankart repair in the setting of increasing glenoid bone loss. Bone loss between 0% and 10% results in similar outcomes across all procedures.

Clinical and radiological outcome of all-suture anchors in shoulder and elbow surgery

Background

All-suture anchors (ASAs) are noted to cause various bone reactions when used in upper limb surgery but clinical implications are unknown.

Methods

88 shoulders and 151 elbows with a mean follow-up of 47.1 ± 17.7 months were invited for follow-up including clinical examination, questionnaires and radiographs. The anchor drill holes were radiographically assessed.

Results

At final follow up, mean DASH was 12.9 ± 13.8 and mean VAS 2.2 ± 2.4 in the shoulder population. In the elbow group mean MEPS was 91.8 ± 12.7 and mean VAS 1.5 ± 1.9. Implant-specific complications were seen in 10 elbow cases but none in the shoulder group. The mean diameter of the 1.4 mm all-suture anchor drill hole was enlarged to 2.5 ± 1.4 mm in the shoulder group and to 2.9 ± 1.0 mm in the elbow group. 50% of the 1.4 mm anchor drill holes showed abnormal morphology but these morphologic changes did not correlate with clinical outcome, complications or reoperation rate.

Discussion

Satisfying clinical outcomes are found in upper limb surgery using ASAs. Various bone changes are seen after implantation of an ASA, but these are not clinically relevant. Long-term consecutive follow-up data is required.

No difference in biomechanical properties of simple, horizontal mattress, and double row repair in Bankart repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of biomechanical studies

BACKGROUND

Arthroscopic Bankart repair is the most common procedure in patients with anterior shoulder instability. Various repair techniques using suture anchors have been used to improve the strength of fixation and surgical outcomes in arthroscopic Bankart surgery. However, evidence regarding which method is superior is lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis study was designed to compare the biomechanical results of simple versus horizontal mattress versus double-row mattress for Bankart repair.

METHODS

A systematic search of the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify comparative biomechanical studies comparing the simple, horizontal mattress, and double-row techniques commonly used in Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability. Biomechanical results included the ultimate load to failure, stiffness, cyclic displacement, and mode of failure after the ultimate load. The methodological quality was assessed based on the Quality Appraisal for Cadaveric Studies (QUACS) scale for biomechanical studies.

RESULTS

Six biomechanical studies comprising 125 human cadavers were included in this systematic review. In biomechanical studies comparing simple and horizontal mattress repair and biomechanical studies comparing simple and double-row repair, there were no significant differences in the ultimate load to failure, stiffness, or cyclic displacement between the repair methods. The median QUACS scale was 11.5 with a range from 10 to 12, indicating a low risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

There was no biomechanically significant difference between the simple, horizontal mattress, and double-row methods in Bankart repair. Clinical evidence such as prospective randomized controlled trials should be conducted to evaluate clinical outcomes according to the various repair methods.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review, Therapeutic level IV.

The Longitude-Latitude-Loop Used for Complex Bankart Lesion Repair: An All-Arthroscopic Technique

The most frequent operation for anterior shoulder instability is the arthroscopic Bankart repair, which has a positive outcome and a low rate of complications. A variety of restoration procedures have been reported to reconstruct labral height and reproduce a dynamic concavity-compression reaction. The longitude-latitude loop is a knotless high-strength suture method that simultaneously tightens the joint capsule in the warp and weft direction and resists tearing. The suture method is safe and reproducible. This study aimed to present a longitude-latitude loop suture for joint capsule labral complex repair during Bankart arthroscopy surgery.

Revision Arthroscopic Labral Repair Using All-Suture Anchors in Patients With Subcritical Glenoid Bone Loss After Failed Bankart Repair: Clinical Outcomes at 2-Year Follow-up

Background

All-suture anchors have been used for primary arthroscopic Bankart repair because of their ability to minimize initial bone loss.

Purpose

To evaluate the clinical efficacy of using all-suture anchors in revision arthroscopic labral repair after failed Bankart repair.

Study Design

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

Enrolled in this study were 28 patients who underwent revision arthroscopic labral repair with all-suture anchors after a failed primary arthroscopic Bankart repair. Revision surgery was determined for patients who had a frank redislocation history with subcritical glenoid bone loss (<15%), nonengaged Hill-Sachs lesion, or off-track lesion. Minimum 2-year postoperative outcomes were evaluated using shoulder range of motion (ROM), the Rowe score, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, apprehension, and the redislocation rate. Postoperative shoulder anteroposterior radiographs were assessed to evaluate arthritic changes in the glenohumeral joint.

Results

The mean patient age was 28.1 ± 6.5 years, and the mean time between primary Bankart repair and revision surgery was 5.4 ± 4.1 years. Compared with the number of suture anchors used in the primary operation, significantly more all-suture anchors were inserted in the revision surgery (3.1 ± 0.5 vs 5.8 ± 1.3, P < .001). During the mean follow-up period of 31.8 ± 10.1 months, 3 patients (10.7%) required reoperation because of traumatic redislocation and symptomatic instability. Of patients with symptoms that did not require reoperation, 2 patients (7.1%) had subjective instability with apprehension depending on the arm position. There was no significant change between preoperative and postoperative ROM. However, ASES (preoperative: 61.2 ± 13.3 to postoperative: 81.4 ± 10.4, P < .01) and Rowe (preoperative: 48.7 ± 9.3 to postoperative: 81.7 ± 13.2, P < .01) scores were significantly improved after revision surgery. Eight patients (28.6%) showed arthritic changes in the glenohumeral joint on final plain anteroposterior radiographs.

Conclusion

Revision arthroscopic labral repair using all-suture anchors demonstrated satisfactory 2-year clinical outcomes in terms of functional improvement. Postoperative stability was obtained in 82% of patients without recurrent shoulder instability after failed arthroscopic Bankart repair.

Arthroscopic repair of rotator cuff injury with bioabsorbable suture anchor vs. all-suture anchor: a non-inferiority study

BACKGROUND

Compare all-suture anchors to traditional anchors through clinical and radiological evaluation at pre-established end-points.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a two-arms non-inferiority study on all-suture anchor (2.3 iconix™, Stryker) device with respect to traditional anchor (5.5 healix Advance™ BR, Depuy/Mitek) device under unpaired samples with size equal to 30 patients per group, all suffering from supraspinatus tendon rupture. We administrated DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand); constant; and SST (Simple Shoulder Test) questionnaires in pre-operative, 3 ± 1 months post-intervention and 8 ± 1 months post-intervention. Questionnaires scores were the primary outcome. We also evaluated RMI at 3 and at 8 months after surgery to assess the presence of oedema or any loosening of the implant.

RESULTS

All-suture anchor approach has been proven to have non-inferior performances with respect to traditional anchor approach, according to questionnaires scores at the 3-month endpoint. We observed 26 patients with oedema by MRI (18 in control group, 6 in experimental group). In the 8-month endpoint we found persistent edema in 12 patients (all treated with healix), 2 had mobilitazions (healix), 10 had partial retears (8 healix, 2 iconix) and 1 implant failure (healix).

CONCLUSIONS

All suture devices have clinical and functional results comparable to traditional devices, while they tend to give fewer complications in terms of bone edema, loosening and retear rate. The effectiveness of all-suture devices should be further investigated in rotator cuff suture arthroscopic revision surgery, given the advantages they offer.

Arthroscopic Posterior Labral Repair in Active-Duty Military Patients: A Reliable Solution for an At-Risk Population, Regardless of Anchor Type

BACKGROUND

Active-duty servicemembers are a population at risk for the development of posterior shoulder instability. While short-term outcomes after arthroscopic posterior labral repair for posterior shoulder instability are promising, there is a paucity of longer term follow-up data for this procedure.

PURPOSES

The primary purpose was to report midterm outcomes after arthroscopic posterior labral repair in active-duty military patients for posterior shoulder instability without bone loss. The secondary purpose was to determine if outcomes varied between anchor types used.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Preoperative and postoperative outcomes, with a minimum 3-year follow-up, for a visual analog scale for pain, the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, and the Rowe score were collected and analyzed. A separate subgroup analysis was performed comparing the outcomes of patients who underwent repair with biocomposite anchors versus those who underwent repair with all-suture anchors.

RESULTS

A total of 73 patients with a mean follow-up of 82.55 ± 24.20 months met the inclusion criteria and were available for analysis. As a whole, the cohort demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvements in outcome scores at final follow-up. Preoperative and postoperative range of motion did not vary significantly. While the difference in final outcome scores between the 2 anchor types did not reach statistical significance, a statistically significantly larger proportion of patients who underwent repair with all-suture anchors versus those who underwent repair with biocomposite anchors met the Patient Acceptable Symptom State for the SANE (97.14% vs 78.95%, respectively; P = .0180) and the ASES score (88.57% vs 68.42%, respectively; P = .0171). The proportion of patients who achieved the substantial clinical benefit or surpassed the minimal clinically important difference, however, did not vary by anchor type. Overall, 70 patients (95.89%) remained on active duty and were able to return to preinjury work and recreational activity levels. There were 3 patients (4.11%) who had recurrent posterior instability.

CONCLUSION

This population of active-duty servicemembers undergoing posterior labral repair for posterior labral instability without bone loss demonstrated a statistically and clinically significant improvement in midterm outcomes, a low recurrence rate, and a rate of return to active duty of 95.89%, regardless of the anchor type used.

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

Background

Shoulder instability and recurrent dislocations are common problems encountered by orthopedic surgeons and are frequently associated with a Bankart lesion. These are classically treated with either open or arthroscopic repair utilizing traditional suture anchors, though anchorless fixation techniques have recently been developed as an alternate fixation method that reduces native bone loss and has comparable pull-out strength.

Methods

A retrospective review was performed at a single institution for patients who underwent Bankart repair from January 2008 through February 2014. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) questionnaires were mailed to 35 patients with anchorless fixation and 35 age-, gender-, and surgeon-matched patients with traditional suture anchors. Statistical analysis was performed comparing re-dislocation, additional surgery, and ASES scores with statistical significance set at p < 0.05.

Results

Eleven patients in the anchorless implant group and 15 patients in the anchor group completed the questionnaire. The mean follow-up was 4.1 years in the anchorless group and 5.6 years in the anchor group (p=0.04). The number of implants was 4.82 in the anchorless group and 3.87 in the anchor group (p = 0.04). No difference was found in re-dislocation rates (p = 0.80) or additional surgery on the affected shoulder (p = 0.75). ASES scores were found to have no statistical difference (89.89 for the anchorless group versus 85.37 for the anchor group; p = 0.78).

Conclusion

In patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart lesion repair with traditional anchors compared to anchorless fixation, there appears to be no difference in shoulder re-dislocation rates, recurrent ipsilateral shoulder surgery, or ASES scores.

Surgical delay for traumatic recurrent shoulder dislocations leads to inferior functional outcomes

BACKGROUND

The effect of time interval between injury and surgery on outcomes of Bankart repair surgery has not been published previously. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of surgical delay on functional outcomes after arthroscopic Bankart repair.

METHOD

One hundred and five athletes who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair ± remplissage were enrolled in the study. Patients were divided into 2 groups depending upon the injury to surgery time- < 12 months (n = 19), and ≥12 months (n = 86). Depending upon the number of episodes of dislocation, patients were further categorized into 2 groups- <10 episodes (n = 66) and ≥10 episodes (n = 39). All patients were assessed post-operatively for functional outcomes (Modified Rowe's score, Constant Murley score) and return to sports at a minimum of 2 years of follow-up.

RESULTS

The mean injury to surgery time was 31.7 ± 23.1 months. The average number of episodes of dislocation before surgery were 10 (range 3-50). 49/105 (46.7%) patients returned to sports after a mean post-operative duration of 10.9 months. Athletes operated after a surgical delay of ≥12 months had inferior functional outcomes (Modified Rowe's score-89.5 ± 8.9 vs.77.4 ± 21.4; p = 0.02), lower rate of return to sports (14/19 vs. 35/86; p = 0.02) and higher mean time to return to sports (8.7 ± 1.9 vs. 11.5 ± 2.6; p < 0.05). Similarly, athletes who had ≥10 dislocations before surgery had inferior functional outcomes (Modified Rowe's score-84.5 ± 15.2 vs.72.9 ± 25.6; p = 0.004), lower rate of return to sports (37/66 vs. 12/39; p = 0.02) and higher mean time to return to sports (10.3 ± 2.4 vs. 12.6 ± 2.5; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

A delay in surgery (≥12 months) or dislocation episodes of ≥10 are associated with inferior functional outcomes, lower rate of return to sports and higher surgical failure rate.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III; Prospective cohort study.

Outcomes of 270° Labral Repair for Combined Shoulder Instability in Active-Duty Military Patients: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

There is a high prevalence of combined shoulder instability in military patients. Short-term outcomes after 270° labral repair are promising; however, there is a paucity of longer term outcome data in this high-demand group of patients.

PURPOSE

To report the midterm outcomes of active-duty military patients treated with 270° labral repair for combined shoulder instability.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

All consecutive patients between January 2011 and January 2019 who underwent 270° labral repair by the senior surgeon with complete outcome scores were identified. All patients had experienced a shoulder dislocation after a traumatic event and had magnetic resonance imaging and intraoperative findings consistent with combined-type instability. A total of 52 patients met the inclusion criteria for the study, and all were active-duty servicemembers at the time of surgery.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 78.21 months (range, 24-117 months). There was a statistically significant increase in the mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (from 44.92 to 89.31; P < .0001), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score (from 52.32 to 93.17; P < .0001), and Rowe instability score (from 46.63 to 91.35; P < .0001) from preoperatively to postoperatively. Mean pain decreased significantly as measured by the visual analog scale for pain (from 8.04 to 1.44; P < .0001). Range of motion in forward flexion (from 155.29° to 155.96°; P = .6793), external rotation (from 67.50° to 65.29°; P = .0623), and internal rotation (from T9.58 to T9.56; P = .9650) did not change significantly postoperatively. Outcomes did not differ significantly for patients who underwent surgery on their dominant shoulder versus those who underwent surgery on their nondominant shoulder, nor did outcomes vary with the type of anchor utilized (biocomposite vs all-suture). The overall rate of return to active duty was 92.31%.

CONCLUSION

Midterm outcomes in this population of active-duty patients undergoing 270° labral repair for combined shoulder instability demonstrated a statistically and clinically significant improvement in patient-reported outcome scores, a significant decrease in pain, and an overall rate of return to active duty of 92.31%.

Editorial Commentary: All-Suture Anchors Are Evidence-Based and Biomechanically Sound but Require Additional Clinical Outcomes Evaluation

All-suture anchors (ASA) have gained great interest in our community, and multiple biomechanical studies have investigated their primary stability. Equal stability with similar load to failure has been observed for ASA in comparison to current standard implants. Although important biomechanical observations have been made, clinical outcomes are rare for ASA. Consequently, there is a lack of evidence for the clinical benefits of ASA.

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

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical outcome of arthroscopic capsulolabral repair for traumatic anterior shoulder instability with PEEK knotless and knotted biodegradable suture anchors.

METHODS

Arthroscopic stabilization was performed in 78 patients with recurrent traumatic anterior shoulder instability. They were divided into 2 groups of 39 patients each, according to suture anchors used: knotless PEEK anchors in group 1, and biodegradable anchors in group 2. Exclusion criteria were: instability without dislocation, posterior or multidirectional instability, glenoid bone loss > 20%, off-track lesions, concomitant rotator cuff tears and previous surgery. The primary outcome was the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) self-administered questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were: Work-DASH, Sport-DASH, Rowe score, recurrent instability and subsequent surgery. The following independent variables were considered: age, gender, dominance, generalized ligamentous hyperlaxity, duration of symptoms, age at first dislocation, number of dislocations, type of work, type of sport, sports activity level, capsule-labral injury pattern, SLAP lesion and number of anchors. Differences between groups for numerical variables were analyzed by use of the Student's t-test or Mann-Whitney U-test. Fisher's exact test was used for analysis of categorical variables. Significance was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Seven patients (9%) were lost at follow-up, 5 from group 1 and 2 from group 2. Follow-up ranged from 36 to 60 months (median: 44; IQR: 13). Comparison between groups did not show significant differences for each independent variable considered. No differences could be found either for DASH (n.s.) or Rowe (p = n.s.) scores between the two groups. Overall recurrence rate was 7%. Three re-dislocations were reported in group 1 and two in group 2 (n.s.). Only one patient in each group underwent re-operation.

CONCLUSIONS

The study showed no significant differences in clinical outcomes after arthroscopic treatment of traumatic anterior shoulder instability using PEEK knotless or biodegradable knotted anchors at mid-term follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

All-Suture Anchors in Orthopaedic Surgery: Design, Rationale, Biomechanical Data, and Clinical Outcomes

All-suture anchors (ASAs) are a relatively new alternative to traditional suture anchors, comprised of sutures, suture tapes, or ribbons woven through a soft sleeve. These novel anchors are typically smaller than traditional anchors, allowing for more anchors to be used in the same amount of space or for use when bone stock is limited, for example, in revision settings. They can be inserted through curved guides to reach more challenging locations, and they have thus far had similar loads to failure during biomechanical testing as traditional anchors. However, these benefits must be weighed against new challenges. When using ASAs, care must be taken to fully deploy and seat the anchor against cortical bone for optimal fixation and to prevent gap formation. Furthermore, decortication, often performed to enhance the biologic environment for soft-tissue healing, may weaken the cortical bone on which ASA fixation depends on. The purpose of this article is to provide insight on the designs, advantages, and potential disadvantages associated with ASAs, as well as review the available biomechanical and clinical data.

Arthroscopic remplissage with all-suture anchors causes cystic lesions in the humerus: a volumetric CT study of 55 anchors

PURPOSE

To evaluate with computed tomography (CT) the incidence of implant-related osteolysis after implantation of two types of all-suture anchors during remplissage for the management of Hill-Sachs lesions in shoulder instability.

METHODS

Single-cohort, observational study with a minimum of 12 months follow-up. Twenty-five participants (19 males and 6 females; mean age 37.4 years [SD: 11.6]) with Hill-Sachs lesions requiring remplissage were evaluated with a CT performed a mean of 14.1 [3.74] months after surgery. Fifty-five all-suture anchors (19 2.3 mm Iconix and 36 1.7 mm Suturefix) were used. The volume of the bone defects was measured in the CT. Every anchor was classified into one of four groups: (1) no bone defect. (2) Partial bone defect (bone defects smaller than the drill used for anchor placement). (3) Tunnel enlargement (bone defect larger than the drill volume but smaller than twice that volume). (4) Cystic lesion (bone defect larger twice the drill volume).

RESULTS

No bone defect was identified in only two anchors (3.6%, 95% CI 0.4-12.5%). A partial bone defect was found in eight anchors (14.5%, 95% CI 6.5-26.7%). In 35 anchors (63.6%, 95% CI 49.6-76.2%), there was enlargement of the bone defect that was smaller than 200% the size of the drill used. Ten anchors caused bone defects larger than twice the size of the drill used (18.2%, 95% CI 9.1-30.9%). The defect size was a mean of 89 mm³ (SD: 49 mm³, minimum 0 mm³, maximum 230 mm³).

CONCLUSION

When using all-suture anchors in arthroscopic remplissage during instability surgery, relevant bone osteolytic defects are common at 1-year-follow-up. Cystic defects larger than twice the volume of the resected bone during implantation develop in one in six anchors and significant tunnel widening will develop in another three out of five anchors. This bone loss effectively increases the size and depth of the Hill-Sachs lesions but does not seem to affect short-term clinical outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Arthroscopic Bankart repair with all-suture anchors does not cause important glenoid bone osteolysis: a volumetric CT study of 143 anchors

PURPOSE

To evaluate with computed tomography (CT) the incidence of anchor-related osteolysis after implantation of two types of all-suture anchors for the management of labral lesions in shoulder instability.

METHODS

Single-cohort, observational study with 12-month follow-up. Thirty-three participants (27 males/6 females; age 38.3 years [SD 11.3]) with anterior labral lesions in which 143 all-suture anchors (71 Iconix 1.4 mm and 72 Suturefix 1.7 mm) were implanted were evaluated with a CT performed a mean of 15.4 [3.85] months after surgery. The volume of the bone defects was measured in the CT. Every anchor was classified into one of four groups: (1) no bone defect. (2) Partial bone defect (defects smaller than the drill used for anchor placement). (3) Tunnel enlargement (defects larger than the drill volume but smaller than twice that volume). (4) Cystic lesion (defects larger than twice the drill volume).

RESULTS

No bone defect was identified in 16 anchors (11.2%, [95% CI 6.5-17.5%]). A partial bone defect was found in 84 anchors (58.7% [50.2-66.9%]). Tunnel enlargement was found in 43 anchors (30.11% [22.6-37.6%]). No anchor caused cystic lesions (0% [0-2.5%]). The defect volume was a mean of 27.8 mm³ (SD 18.4 mm³, minimum 0 mm³, maximum 94 mm³). Neither the position in the glenoid nor the type of implant used had a significant effect in the type or size of the defects.

CONCLUSION

When using all-suture anchors in the glenoid during instability surgery, relevant bone osteolytic defects are rare at 1-year follow-up. Most anchor insertion tunnels will fill completely (11%) or partially (59%) with bone. Tunnel enlargement will develop in 30% of anchors. No cystic defects larger than 0.125 cm³ were observed. There is a low risk that all-suture anchors cause significant osteolytic bone defects in the glenoid. These implants can be used safely. Level of evidence IV.

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

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.

All-suture anchors versus metal suture anchors in the arthroscopic treatment of traumatic anterior shoulder instability: A comparison of mid-term outcomes

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to compare metal suture anchors and all-suture anchors clinically and radiologically in arthroscopic Bankart repair.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, 67 patients (61 males, 6 females; mean age 26.0±5.8; range, 18 to 43 years) who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair between April 2009 and October 2016 were divided into two groups depending on the type of the suture anchor used in different periods. Group A comprised 32 patients with arthroscopic Bankart repair performed with metal suture anchors, and Group B comprised 35 patients with arthroscopic Bankart repair performed with all-suture anchors. The patients were clinically evaluated using Rowe scores, Constant scores, redislocation rates, and positive apprehension test rates. Radiographic evaluation was performed using the Samilson-Prieto classification to observe the development of glenohumeral osteoarthritis.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up period was 41.1±10.4 (range, 30 to 60) months in Group A, and 39.6±9.4 (range, 28 to 60) months in Group B, with no significant difference between the two groups (p=0.559). No significant difference was observed between Group A and Group B in terms of mean Rowe score (89.2±13.8 [range, 40 to 100] vs. 88.7±16.9 [range, 25 to 100]; p=0.895) or Constant score (87.2±8.9 [range, 48 to 96] vs. 86.9±9.0 [range, 46 to 96]; p=0.878), which were the clinical outcomes at the final follow-up examination. Postoperative redislocation rates (3.1% vs. 2.9%, p=1.0) and positive apprehension test rates (6.3% vs. 8.6%, p=1.0) were found to be similar in both groups. According to the Samilson-Prieto classification, there was no evidence of glenohumeral osteoarthritis in any of the patients in either group.

CONCLUSION

Satisfactory outcomes were obtained with the use of all-suture anchors in arthroscopic Bankart repair for traumatic anterior shoulder instability. All-suture anchors and metal suture anchors, have similar outcomes in the mid-term and all-suture anchors are a reliable and effective option for arthroscopic Bankart repair.

Peri-anchor cyst formation after arthroscopic bankart repair: comparison between biocomposite suture anchor and all-suture anchor

Background

The purpose of this study is to investigate clinical outcomes and radiological findings of cyst formation in the glenoid around suture anchors after arthroscopic Bankart repair with either biocomposite suture anchor or all-suture anchor in traumatic anterior shoulder instability. We hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in clinical and radiological outcomes between the two suture materials.

Methods

This retrospective study reviewed 162 patients (69 in group A, biocomposite anchor; 93 in group B, all-suture anchor) who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair of traumatic recurrent anterior shoulder instability with less than 20% glenoid defect on preoperative en-face view three-dimensional computed tomography. Patient assignment was not randomized.

Results

At final follow-up, the mean subjective shoulder value, Rowe score, and University of California, Los Angeles shoulder score improved significantly in both groups. However, there were no significant differences in functional shoulder scores and recurrence rate (6%, 4/69 in group A; 5%, 5/93 in group B) between the two groups. On follow-up magnetic resonance arthrography/computed tomography arthrography, the incidence of peri-anchor cyst formation was 5.7% (4/69) in group A and 3.2% (3/93) in group B, which was not a significant difference.

Conclusions

Considering the low incidence of peri-anchor cyst formation in the glenoid after Bankart repair with one of two anchor systems and the lack of association with recurrence instability, biocomposite and all-suture anchors in Bankart repair yield satisfactory outcomes with no significant difference.

Cyclic and Load-to-Failure Properties of All-Suture Anchors in Human Cadaveric Shoulder Greater Tuberosities

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cyclic displacement, stiffness, and ultimate load to failure of 3 all-suture anchors in human cadaveric greater tuberosities.

METHODS

Three all-suture anchors indicated for rotator cuff repair were tested in 14 matched pairs of human cadaver fresh-frozen humeri. Anchors were inserted at 3 locations from anterior to posterior along the greater tuberosity and placed 5 mm from the articular margin. The constructs were cycled from 10 to 60 N at 1 Hz for 200 cycles. The anchors that survived cycling were then subjected to a single pull to failure test. A Kruskal-Wallis 1-way analysis of variance on ranks was performed to compare the displacement, stiffness, and ultimate load to failure of the different anchors tested.

RESULTS

One matched pair was excluded because of poor bone quality; therefore, 13 matched pairs were included in the study. After 20, 100, and 200 cycles, there was no difference in median displacement between the anchors tested (P = .23, P = .21, P = .18, respectively). The median ultimate load-to-failure between the Iconix (295.2 N, 95% confidence interval [CI], 125-762.2), JuggerKnot (287.6 N, 95% CI, 152.9-584.4), and Q-fix (333.3 N, 95% CI, 165.0-671.9) showed no statistically significant difference (P = .58). After 20, 100, and 200 cycles, there was no difference in median stiffness between the anchors tested (P = .41, P = .19, P = .26 respectively). Displacement greater than 5 mm occurred in 0 Iconix anchors (0%), 1 JuggerKnot anchor (3.64%), and 2 Q-fix anchors (7.69%). One JuggerKnot anchor failed by anchor pullout during cyclic loading.

CONCLUSIONS

When tested in human cadaveric humeral greater tuberosities 3 all-suture anchors, the 2.9-mm JuggerKnot, the 2.8-mm Q-fix, and the 2.3-mm Iconix, showed no significant differences in median displacement or stiffness after 20, 100, or 200 cycles or in median ultimate load to failure. Although not statistically significant, the Iconix was the only anchor tested to have no failures, whereas the JuggerKnot had both a clinical and catastrophic failure and the Q-fix had 2 clinical failures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V, Controlled Laboratory Study.

Double-loaded suture anchors in the treatment of anteroinferior glenohumeral instability

Hypothesis

The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic labral repair for anteroinferior glenohumeral instability with the use of double-loaded suture anchors.

Methods

This study evaluated a series of consecutive patients treated after the senior author changed from single- to double-loaded suture anchors for the treatment of anteroinferior glenohumeral instability with a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. We collected the following outcomes at final follow-up: visual analog scale pain score, Simple Shoulder Test score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, and instability recurrence data.

Results

A total of 41 consecutive patients underwent arthroscopic labral repair with double-loaded anchors, of whom 30 (71%) were able to be contacted at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively. These patients included 4 contact or collision athletes (13%). The patients had an average of 12 ± 13 prior dislocations over an average period of 56 ± 57 months preoperatively. Mean glenoid bone loss measured 16% ± 10%, and 67% (18 of 27 patients) had glenoid bone loss ≥ 13.5%. Intraoperatively, 3.2 ± 0.4 anchors were used. No posterior repairs or remplissage procedures were performed. At an average of 6.7 ± 2.7 years' follow-up, the visual analog scale pain score was 0.8 ± 1.4; Simple Shoulder Test score, 11 ± 2; and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, 90 ± 14. Patients with bone loss < 13.5% had a 0% redislocation rate and 11% subluxation rate, whereas those with bone loss ≥ 13.5% had a 6% reoperation rate, 22% redislocation rate, and 22% subluxation rate.

Conclusion

Arthroscopic labral repair with double-loaded anchors provides satisfactory clinical results at early to mid-term outcome assessment when glenoid bone loss is <13.5%.

Editorial Commentary: What is the Difference That Makes the Differences? The Practical Rationality of the All-Suture Anchor

Suture anchor technologies are constantly being innovated in the quest for improved stability, biological integration and clinical outcomes. However, the decision about the choice of suture-anchor materials remain elusive. There are some factors, including reliability, effectiveness, simplicity, familiarity, and cost, that affect a surgeon's preference. The relative weights placed on different factors by different surgeons play decisive roles in individual choice. But decisions and choices are not arbitrary or merely subjective. Alternative options can be warranted or contested by rational argumentation. At the end, there may be losses and gains in the change of 1 suture anchor for another, but science does progress.

Editorial Commentary: Perianchor Cysts-We Need More Worries After Rotator Cuff Repair Like We Need Holes in the Head

Cysts or radiolucent rings are relatively common around suture anchors after rotator cuff repair. The rate of cyst occurrence is similar across anchor types and materials. Generally, perianchor cysts are benign and can be regarded as not affecting clinical outcomes.

Editorial Commentary: Shoulder Repair All-Suture Fixators: Anchors Away or Tell Us Why Not?

The current array of shoulder repair anchors, techniques, and constructs vary greatly and offer many choices to optimize soft-tissue healing to bone. The widely used all-suture anchor designs represent an innovative option that allows for versatile delivery and a low-profile anchor construct that minimizes bone drilling and preserves native bone. Various reports of tissue reactions to copolymer and biocomposite materials and now all-suture anchors have been published raising concerns in some cases over safety, adverse events, and clinical performance. Other studies have described reactions in which the clinical correlative significance remains unclear. Determination of what matters and what is significant will help to decide if radiographic tunnel enlargement does occur over time and if it changes our clinical decision-making and choice of which anchors to use.