Comparison of fixation properties between coil-type and screw-type anchors for rotator cuff repair: A virtual pullout testing using 3-dimensional finite element method

Biomechanical analysis of bioabsorbable suture anchors for rotator cuff repair using osteoporotic and normal bone models

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the failure load of suture anchors used in rotator cuff repair between normal and osteoporotic bone models.

METHODS

A total of 16 anchors made from metal (TwinFix Ti 5.0 or 6.5 mm, Corkscrew FT 4.5, 5.5, or 6.5 mm), polyether ether ketone (HEALICOIL PK [HC-PK] 4.5 or 5.5 mm, SwiveLock PK 4.75 or 5.5 mm), or bioabsorbable material (HEALICOIL RG [HC-RG] 4.75 or 5.5 mm, Corkscrew Bio 4.75, 5.5, or 6.5 mm, SwiveLock BC 4.75 or 5.5 mm) were included. Moreover, 10- and 5-pounds per cubic foot (pcf) Sawbone® models were set as normal and osteoporotic cancellous bone models, respectively. Pullout testing was performed in parallel to the insertion axis at a displacement rate of 12.5 mm/s using a universal testing machine. To evaluate the change in failure load between the two Sawbone® models with different densities, the remaining failure load ratio (RFLR) was defined as the ratio of the failure load in 10 pcf to that in 5 pcf.

RESULTS

In the 10-pcf Sawbone®, TwinFix Ti 6.5 mm showed the highest mean failure load (304.0 ± 15.2 N). In the 5-pcf Sawbone® model, HC-PK 5.5 mm showed the highest failure load (146.3 ± 5.8 N). Among anchors with the same diameter, HC-PK and HC-RG showed a significantly higher failure load than other anchors in the 10- and 5-pcf Sawbone® models. HC-PK 5.5 mm (62.1%) and HC-PK 4.5 mm (51.1%) have the highest RFLR among anchors with the same diameter.

CONCLUSIONS

HC-PK and HC-RG showed higher failure load than the other anchors in both normal and osteoporotic bone models, except for TwinFix Ti 6.5 mm in the 10-pcf Sawbone® model. Based on our results, bioabsorbable anchors had sufficient failure load for rotator cuff repair in addition to bioabsorbability.

Protocol for a Retrospective Comparative Study to Determine the Effect of Two Different Biocomposite Suture Anchors on the Occurrence of Bony Ingrowth and Implant Reabsorption Following Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair

Introduction

Surgical treatment of rotator cuff tears commonly entails reattachment of the ruptured tendon to its bony insertion using suture anchors. Suture anchor design has evolved from solid metal anchors to vented biocomposite anchors with potentially biologic consequences. Few studies have investigated the differences between different modern anchor design and materials, making it difficult to justify their use or cost.

Objective

To compare the rate of bony ingrowth and implant resorption between a coil-type open-architecture biocomposite suture anchor and a vented screw-type biocomposite suture anchor, used for arthroscopic double-row rotator cuff repair.

Methods and analysis

In this retrospective comparative study, a consecutive series of patients who undergo a double row rotator cuff repair using a coil-type open architecture biocomposite suture anchor in the medial row and a vented screw-type biocomposite suture anchor in the lateral row will be included. A sample size calculation demonstrated that 16 participants are required in each group. Primary outcome measures will be bony ingrowth and reabsorption of the suture anchor as measured on computed tomography (CT). Secondary outcomes will include patient reported outcome measures (The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score and The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff questionnaire), range of motion, postoperative tendon integrity, and cyst formation.

Highlights

Open-architecture suture anchors facilitate the release of marrow constituents.The rate of bony ingrowth for coil- and screw-type anchors will be assessed.The difference in functional outcome between the two anchors will be assessed.

Regenesorb and polylactic acid hydroxyapatite anchors are associated with similar osseous integration and rotator cuff healing at 2 years

BACKGROUND

Commercially available suture anchors for rotator cuff repairs can differ significantly in architecture and material. Clinical data on their osseous integration and its effect on patient-reported outcomes is scarce. Preclinical investigations indicated a higher rate of osseous integration for the open-architecture design of the Healicoil Regenesorb anchor than the closed-threaded design of the Twinfix (Smith & Nephew). The purpose of this study was to investigate these 2 anchors with different architecture and material to determine their effect on osseous integration and clinical outcomes after rotator cuff repair.

METHODS

A prospective randomized controlled trial was performed from 2014 to 2019. Sixty-four patients (39 females, 25 males) with an average age of 58.7 years who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair by one of 4 board-certified, fellowship-trained surgeons were randomized to receive Healicoil Regenesorb (PLGA/ß-TCP/Calcium Sulfate) or Twinfix Ultra HA (PLLA/HA) anchors. Thirty-two patients had Healicoil anchors implanted, and 32 patients had Twinfix anchors implanted. Of the 64 patients, 51 returned at 24 months for computed tomographic (CT) examination (25 Twinfix and 26 Healicoil) to determine osteointegration of the anchors. Patient-reported outcomes, including Penn Shoulder Score (PENN), Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index, visual analog scale, EQ-5D, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, Global Rating of Change, were collected at baseline, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months. Ultrasonography was used to assess rotator cuff integrity after 6 months. Two board-certified, fellowship-trained orthopedic surgeons, blinded to the type of anchors, analyzed the CT scans to assess the anchor osteointegration at 24 months using a previously published grading scale.

RESULTS

There were no differences in demographics, preoperative outcomes, or baseline characteristics such as tear size, number of anchors, Goutallier classification, or smoking status between groups. There was no difference in osseous integration between the 2 anchors at 24 months (P = .117). Eight patients had rotator cuff retears, of which 2 patients had Twinfix anchors and 6 patients had Healicoil anchors (P = .18). There were no statistically significant differences in patient-reported outcomes or complications between groups. The 2-year PENN scores were 89 with the Twinfix and 88 with Healicoil anchors (P = .55).

CONCLUSION

Despite differences in material and anchor architecture, the rate of healing and patient-reported outcomes were similar between the Twinfix and Healicoil anchor groups. The rate of osteointegration was the same at 2 years.

Bony Ingrowth of Coil-Type Open-Architecture Anchors Compared With Screw-Type PEEK Anchors for the Medial Row in Rotator Cuff Repair: A Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate outcomes of screw-type and coil-type open-architecture suture anchors with respect to bony ingrowth, release of biological markers, and patient-reported outcome measures when used in rotator cuff repair (RCR).

METHODS

Forty patients undergoing arthroscopic RCR for full-thickness rotator cuff tears were enrolled and prospectively randomized to receive a screw-type (19 patients) or coil-type (21 patients) suture anchor for the medial row during repair. All repairs used a transosseous-equivalent configuration with footprint anchors laterally. Marrow elements released during surgery were evaluated for 9 cytokine markers (insulin-like growth factor 1, fibroblast growth factor 2, bone morphogenetic proteins 7 and 2, platelet-derived growth factors AA and BB, epidermal growth factor, transforming growth factor beta1, and vascular endothelial growth factor). Postoperative computed tomography scans were performed at 6 months. Range of motion, strength, and validated patient-reported outcome measures (Simple Shoulder Test, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, visual analog scale, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores) were gathered before the operation and at 6 months and 1 year postoperatively.

RESULTS

Bone mineral density surrounding the coil-type anchor was significantly greater than that surrounding the screw-type anchor (P = .005). Bone mineral density values within the coil-type and screw-type anchors were comparable (P = .527); however, a larger amount of total bone mineral mass (in milligrams) was shown within the coil-type anchor owing to its larger volume (P < .01). Marrow elements released at the repair site were similar between groups (P > .05). Postoperatively, no statistically significant difference was found between groups for clinical outcome measures at 6 months or 1 year. Retear and complication rates were similar between groups (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Both the coil-type and screw-type anchors can be reliably used for RCR and produce similar clinical outcomes. The coil-type anchor resulted in superior bony growth surrounding the anchor and a larger total bone mineral mass within the anchor owing to its larger volume.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, randomized prospective comparative study.

Three anchor concepts for rotator cuff repair in standardized physiological and osteoporotic bone: a biomechanical study

BACKGROUND

Previous biomechanical studies used single-pull destructive tests in line with the anchor and are limited by a great variability of bone density of cadaver samples. To overcome these limitations, a more physiological test setting was provided using titanium, bioresorbable, and all-suture anchors.

METHODS

In this controlled laboratory study, 3 anchor constructs were divided into 2 groups: physiological and osteoporotic. Sixty standardized artificial bone specimens (=10 for each anchor in each group) were used for biomechanical testing. The anchors were inserted at a 45° angle as during surgery. Cyclic loading for 1000 cycles followed by ultimate load-to-failure (ULTF) testing was performed. Elongation, ultimate load at failure, and the mode of failure were noted.

RESULTS

In the physiological group, the ULTF for the all-suture anchor (mean [standard deviation], 632.9 [96.8 N]) was found to be significantly higher than for the other anchors (titanium, 497.1 [50.5] N, and bioresorbable, 322.4 [3.1 N], P < .0001). The titanium anchor showed a significantly higher ULTF than the bioresorbable anchor (P < .0001). In the osteoporotic group, the all-suture anchor again showed a higher ULTF compared to the bioresorbable anchor (500.9 [50.6] N vs. 315.1 [11.3] N, P < .0001). In the osteoporotic group, cyclic loading revealed a higher elongation after 1000 loading cycles for the bioresorbable (0.40 [0.12] mm) compared to the titanium (0.22 [0.11] mm; P = .01) as well as the all-suture anchor (0.19 [0.15] mm, P = .003).

CONCLUSION

Regarding ULTF, the all-suture anchor outperformed the other anchors in physiological bone, but in osteoporotic bone, significance was reached only compared to the bioresorbable anchor. Although cyclic loading revealed significant differences, these might not be clinically relevant.

Minimum Distance of Suture Anchors Used for Rotator Cuff Repair Without Decreasing the Pullout Strength: A Biomechanical Study

PURPOSE

To investigate the minimum distance between the anchors without decreasing the pullout strength using the polyurethane foams and the porcine bones.

METHODS

Metal screw-type anchors and PEEK (polyether ether ketone) coil-type anchors were used. Two same-type suture anchors were placed into the polyurethane foams and porcine bones. The polyurethane foams were 3 different densities simulating severe osteoporosis, osteoporosis, and normal bone. The distances between the centers of anchors were set at 4, 6, 8, and 10 mm. The pair of anchors were loaded to failure if they had not been pulled out after cyclic loading from 50 to 200 N, 10 cycles per each 50-N increment. Mode of failure, ultimate load to failure, displacement of the anchor, and number of cycles completed were recorded.

RESULTS

In all polyurethane foams of 3 different densities with use of metal screw-type anchors, the 4-mm group demonstrated a significantly lower ultimate load to failure compared with the 6-, 8-, and 10-mm groups (P < .01). There were no significant differences in the load to failure among the 6-, 8-, and 10-mm groups. Porcine bone or PEEK coil-type anchor showed results similar to those of the metal screw-type anchors.

CONCLUSION

For the 2 tested anchors, the minimum distance between the anchors without decreasing the pullout strength was 6 mm (center to center) regardless of bone density in a biomechanical study.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Although it has been thought that the minimum distance between the anchors without decreasing the pullout strength was 1 cm (center to center), our data showed that it was 6 mm.