Revisability of polyetheretherketone suture anchors utilised in primary and revision Bankart repair

Biomechanical Studies for Glenoid Based Labral Repairs With Suture Anchors Do Not Use Consistent Testing Methods: A Critical Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate variability in biomechanical testing protocols for laboratory-based studies using suture anchors for glenohumeral shoulder instability and SLAP lesion repair.

METHODS

A systematic review of Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar using Covidence software was performed for all biomechanical studies investigating labral-based suture anchor repair for shoulder instability and SLAP lesions. Clinical studies, technical notes or surgical technique descriptions, or studies treating glenoid bone loss or capsulorrhaphy were excluded. Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed with the ROBINS-I tool. Study quality was assessed with the Quality Appraisal for Cadaveric Studies. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I² statistic.

RESULTS

A total of 41 studies were included. ROB was serious and critical in 27 studies, moderate in 13, and low in 1; 6 studies had high quality, 21 good quality, 10 moderate quality, 2 low quality, and 2 very low quality. Thirty-one studies used and 22 studies included cyclic loading. Angle of anchor insertion was reported by 33 studies. The force vector for displacement varied. The most common directions were perpendicular to the glenoid (n = 9), and anteroinferior or anterior (n = 8). The most common outcome measures were load to failure (n = 35), failure mode (n = 23), and stiffness (n = 21). Other outcome measures included load at displacement, displacement at failure, tensile load at displacement, translation, energy absorbed, cycles to failure, contact pressure, and elongation.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review demonstrated a clear lack of consistency in those cadaver studies that investigated biomechanical properties after surgical repair with suture anchors for shoulder instability and SLAP lesions. Testing methods between studies varied substantially with no universally applied standard for preloading, load to failure and cyclic loading protocols, insertion angles of suture anchors, or direction of loading. To allow comparability between studies standardization of testing protocols is strongly recommended.

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.