All-Suture Anchor Settling After Arthroscopic Repair of Small and Medium Rotator Cuff Tears

The Relationship Between All-Suture and Solid Medial-Row Anchors and Patient-Reported Outcomes for Double-Row Suture Bridge Rotator Cuff Repair

Background

The use of all-suture anchors for rotator cuff repair is increasing. Potential benefits include decreased bone loss and decreased damage to the chondral surface. Minimal evidence exists comparing outcomes among medial-row anchor fixation methods in double-row suture bridge rotator cuff repair.

Purpose

To compare the clinical outcomes between all-suture and solid medial-row anchors in double-row suture bridge rotator cuff repair.

Study Design

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

A total of 352 patients (mean age at surgery, 60.3 years) underwent double-row suture bridge rotator cuff repair at our institution. Patients were separated into 2 groups based on whether they underwent all-suture (n = 280) or solid (n = 72) anchor fixation for the medial row. Outcomes data were collected via an ongoing longitudinal data repository or through telephone calls (minimum follow-up time, 2.0 years; mean follow-up time, 3.0 years). Outcomes were evaluated using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) standardized shoulder assessment form and the visual analog scale (VAS). The same rehabilitation protocol was administered to all patients. The proportions of patients meeting previously published Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds were calculated for the outcome measures, and outcome scores and the proportions of patients meeting PASS thresholds between groups were compared using linear and logistic regression, respectively.

Results

The groups did not differ in terms of age at surgery, sex distribution, rotator cuff tear size, or number of medial-row anchors used. The solid anchor group had a longer follow-up time compared with the all-suture anchor group (3.6 ± 0.7 vs 2.8 ± 0.8 years, respectively; P < .01). After controlling for follow-up time, the solid and all-suture anchor groups did not differ in ASES scores (89.6 ± 17.8 vs 88.8 ± 16.7, respectively; P = .44) or VAS scores (1.1 ± 2.1 vs 1.2 ± 2.1, respectively; P = .37). Similarly, after controlling for follow-up time, the solid and all-suture anchor groups did not differ in the proportions of patients meeting PASS cutoffs for the ASES (84.7% vs 80.7%, respectively; P = .44) or the VAS (80.6% vs 75.0%, respectively; P = .83).

Conclusion

Double-row suture bridge rotator cuff repair using all-suture anchors for medial-row fixation demonstrated similar excellent clinical outcomes to rotator cuff repair using solid medial-row anchors.

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.

Outcomes of Double-Row Rotator Cuff Repair Using a Novel All-Suture Soft Anchor Medial Row

Background

Few studies have examined the short-term clinical outcomes of rotator cuff repair (RCR) with all-suture anchors for medial row anchor fixation.

Purpose

To evaluate clinical outcomes of double-row suture bridge RCR using a novel all-suture medial row anchor.

Study Design

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

We enrolled 179 patients before double-row suture bridge RCR (mean age at surgery, 60.0 years; 63% male patients) at a single institution. All patients underwent RCR with all-suture anchor fixation for the medial row and solid anchor fixation for the lateral row. Preoperative (baseline) and follow-up (minimum follow-up time of 2 years; mean, 2.5 years) clinical outcomes were compared using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score and a 10-point numeric pain rating scale (NPRS). We calculated the proportions of patients meeting previously published Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds for the ASES (≥78.0) and NPRS (≤1.7). We further compared baseline and follow-up outcome scores and the proportions of patients meeting PASS thresholds using paired t tests and McNemar tests, respectively, and calculated effect size to quantify the magnitude of change from baseline to follow-up.

Results

Values significantly improved from baseline to follow-up for ASES (from 45.3 ± 19.8 to 87.3 ± 17.1) and NPRS (from 5.2 ± 2.5 to 1.4 ± 2.1). The proportion of patients meeting PASS thresholds also significantly improved for the ASES (from 6% to 77%) and the NPRS (from 7% to 72%). The magnitude of baseline to follow-up change for all measures was large (all effect sizes ≥1.5).

Conclusion

Our study demonstrated excellent short-term clinical outcomes and substantial improvements for patients undergoing double-row suture bridge RCR with all-suture anchors for medial row fixation.

Soft Anchors for Rotator Cuff Repair: A Review

»

All-suture anchors or so-called "soft" anchors, initially adapted for labral repairs, have increased in popularity for use in rotator cuff repair because of their smaller size, decreased occupation of the footprint, improved points of fixation, ease of use, and ease of revision.

»

In limited series, soft anchors have demonstrated equivalent biomechanical and clinical performance compared with hard body anchors for rotator cuff repair.

»

Perianchor cyst formation can occur with both hard body and soft anchors.

»

Biomechanical and clinical data support aiming for vertical angles of insertion for soft anchors.

Perianchor cyst formation in all-suture anchor after rotator cuff repair: an evaluation of anchor insertion angle

BACKGROUND

Previous studies reported that micromotion after all-suture anchor implantation can lead to perianchor cyst formation (PCF), leading to risk of retear. Modifying anchor insertion angle (AIA) is known to be one of the various ways to increase anchor stability. However, there currently are few studies that assess the correlation between PCF, AIA, and retear.

PURPOSE

To find the correlation of PCF and the repaired rotator cuff integrity with AIA after arthroscopic double-row suture-bridge rotator cuff repair (RCR) using an all-suture anchor in the medial row.

METHODS

A total of 218 patients who underwent arthroscopic double-row suture-bridge RCR were retrospectively reviewed. All patients underwent RCR using all-suture anchors and polyether ketone anchors in the medial and lateral rows, respectively. Magnetic resonance imaging was conducted 6 months after the surgery to evaluate PCF, AIA, and integrity of the repaired cuff. The all-suture anchor insertion angle in the medial row was measured with reference to the greater tuberosity to assess the relationship between the AIA and PCF. The correlations between PCF, AIA, and post-RCR integrity were evaluated including various demographic and radiologic factors.

RESULTS

Perianchor cysts were formed in 93 patients (42.7%). Mediolateral tear size (2.1 ± 1.2 cm vs. 1.7 ± 0.9 cm, P = .034) and AIA (61.9° ± 15.2° vs. 68.4° ± 13.0°, P = .001) were significantly different between patient groups with and without perianchor cysts. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that mediolateral tear size (odds ratio [OR] 1.318, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.008-1.724; P = .043) and AIA (OR 0.967, 95% CI 0.947-0.988; P = .002) were independent risk factors for PCF. In addition, PCF was observed more frequently (69.6% vs. 32.1%, P < .001) and the AIA was lower (59.4° ± 13.7° vs. 67.8° ± 13.8°, P < .001) in the retear group than in the healed group.

CONCLUSIONS

Perianchor cysts were formed in approximately 40% of patients who underwent arthroscopic double-row suture-bridge RCR using all-suture anchors. Low AIA and large mediolateral tear size were risk factors for PCF. Moreover, perianchor cyst and AIA were correlated with post-RCR integrity. Therefore, a high AIA must be carefully considered when all-suture anchors are inserted into the medial row when performing RCR.

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.

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 repair of the medium-size rotator cuff tear with the novel technique of the point union bridge: a minimum 2-year follow-up cohort study

BACKGROUND

Achieving secure fixation and preventing retear have been recognized as fundamental in arthroscopic repair of rotator cuff tears. Moreover, reducing internal implantation can lower medical expenses and minimize the operation time, which is essential for the surgical safety and postoperative rehabilitation of the patients. We have recently proposed the point union bridge (PUB) suture configuration as a novel method for not only providing equivalent fixation but also decreasing the operation time and medical expenses. However, no comparative clinical studies have been performed.

METHODS

From March 2014 to September 2016, a total of 88 patients with diagnoses of medium-size rotator cuff tears underwent arthroscopic repair with a randomly assigned technique-either the PUB technique (n = 42) or the double-row suture bridge (DRSB) technique (n = 46). All patients underwent a minimal 2-year follow-up. We used the Constant-Murley score (CMS), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, active and passive range of motion, and visual pain-simulation score (visual analog scale [VAS] score) to assess the functional outcomes. In addition, we recorded the arthroscopic operation time, medical costs, and postoperative complications. All patients received magnetic resonance imaging at the 6-month and 2-year postoperative evaluations to assess structural integrity and tendon healing.

RESULTS

At the 2-year follow-up, all scoring parameters evaluated (CMS, ASES score, and VAS score), as well as active and passive range of motion, improved significantly in both groups as compared with preoperative assessments. The PUB technique significantly decreased the operation time (55.9 ± 14.1 minutes vs. 72.2 ± 14.2 minutes for PUB vs. DRSB, P < .001) and medical expenses ($2608.0 ± $391.1 vs. $4056.9 ± $350.9 for PUB vs. DRSB, P < .001). However, no significant differences between the 2 techniques were found in any functional assessments of the shoulder (CMS, ASES score, and VAS score), repair integrity, or the retear rate at the 2-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic repair of the medium-size rotator cuff tear with either the PUB or DRSB technique could yield both satisfactory improvements in the shoulder function of patients and equivalent tendon integrity. With less consumption of internal implants, the PUB technique significantly reduced the operation time and decreased medical expenses.