Objectives. This study evaluated the mechanical performance, under low-load cyclic loading, of two different knotless suture anchor designs: sutures completely internal to the anchor body (SpeedScrew) and sutures external to the anchor body and adjacent to bone (MultiFIX P). Methods. Using standard suture loops pulled in-line with the rotator cuff (approximately 60°), anchors were tested in cadaveric bone and foam blocks representing normal to osteopenic bone. Mechanical testing included preloading to 10 N and cyclic loading for 500 cycles from 10 N to 60 N at 60 mm/min. The parameters evaluated were initial displacement, cyclic displacement and number of cycles and load at 3 mm displacement relative to preload. Video recording throughout testing documented the predominant source of suture displacement and the distance of ‘suture cutting through bone’. Results. In cadaveric bone and foam blocks, MultiFIX P anchors had significantly greater initial displacement, and lower number of cycles and lower load at 3 mm displacement than SpeedScrew anchors. Video analysis revealed ‘suture cutting through bone’ as the predominant source of suture displacement in cadaveric bone (qualitative) and greater ‘suture cutting through bone’ comparing MultiFIX P with SpeedScrew anchors in foam blocks (quantitative). The greater suture displacement in MultiFIX P anchors was predominantly from suture cutting through bone, which was enhanced in an osteopenic bone model. Conclusions. Anchors with sutures external to the anchor body are at risk for suture cutting through bone since the suture eyelet is at the distal tip of the implant and the suture directly abrades against the bone edge during cyclic loading. Suture cutting through bone may be a significant source of fixation failure, particularly in osteopenic bone. Cite this article: Y. Ono, J. M. Woodmass, A. A. Nelson, R. S. Boorman, G. M. Thornton, I. K. Y. Lo. Knotless anchors with sutures external to the anchor body may be at risk for suture cutting through osteopenic bone. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:269–275. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.56.2000535

Insertional Achilles tendinitis with considerable degeneration that failed non-operative treatment typically requires tendon debridement and reattachment to bone. It is common practice for tendons to be reattached back with anchor sutures, but this poses a challenge to patients who are not able to afford them. Bony anchorage of tendons may be performed by passing sutures through tunnels, but the strength of repair compared to by using anchors is not known. We investigated the load at clinical and catastrophic failure of these two methods of reattachment. Sixteen paired Achilles tendons along with the calcaneus were harvested from eight fresh frozen cadavers. Paired randomization was done. For the anchor suture group, two 5’0 anchors with polyethylene #2 sutures were used for reattachment whereas for the suture only group, tendons were reattached to bone using braided polyester #2 sutures via two bony tunnels. All samples were mounted on a materials testing system and preloaded at 50N for 60sec before load to failure at a rate of 1mm/sec. With the assumption that preloading has removed tendon crimp and any subsequent extension is a result of gapping at the repair site, loads at 5mm, 10mm, 15mm, and 20mm of extension were noted as well as the maximal load at failure. We found higher loads were needed to cause an extension of 5 to 20mm in the suture only group compared to the anchor suture group but these data were not significant. On the other hand, the anchor suture group required higher loads before catastrophic failure occurred compared to the suture only group, but this again is not significant. We conclude that suture only reattachment of the Achilles tendon is comparable in strength with anchor suture reattachment, and this method of reattachment can be considered for patients who do not have access to anchor sutures

Objectives. All-suture anchors are increasingly used in rotator cuff repair procedures. Potential benefits include decreased bone damage. However, there is limited published evidence for the relative strength of fixation for all-suture anchors compared with traditional anchors. Materials and Methods. A total of four commercially available all-suture anchors, the ‘Y-Knot’ (ConMed), Q-FIX (Smith & Nephew), ICONIX (Stryker) and JuggerKnot (Zimmer Biomet) and a traditional anchor control TWINFIX Ultra PK Suture Anchor (Smith & Nephew) were tested in cadaveric human humeral head rotator cuff repair models (n = 24). This construct underwent cyclic loading applied by a mechanical testing rig (Zwick/Roell). Ultimate load to failure, gap formation at 50, 100, 150 and 200 cycles, and failure mechanism were recorded. Significance was set at p < 0.05. Results. Overall, mean maximum tensile strength values were significantly higher for the traditional anchor (181.0 N, standard error (. se). 17.6) compared with the all-suture anchors (mean 133.1 N . se. 16.7) (p = 0.04). The JuggerKnot anchor had greatest displacement at 50, 100 and 150 cycles, and at failure, reaching statistical significance over the control at 100 and 150 cycles (22.6 mm . se. 2.5 versus 12.5 mm . se. 0.3; and 29.6 mm . se. 4.8 versus 17.0 mm . se. 0.7). Every all-suture anchor tested showed substantial (> 5 mm) displacement between 50 and 100 cycles (6.2 to 14.3). All-suture anchors predominantly failed due to anchor pull-out (95% versus 25% of traditional anchors), whereas a higher proportion of traditional anchors failed secondary to suture breakage. Conclusion. We demonstrate decreased failure load, increased total displacement, and variable failure mechanisms in all-suture anchors, compared with traditional anchors designed for rotator cuff repair. These findings will aid the surgeon’s choice of implant, in the context of the clinical scenario. Cite this article: N. S. Nagra, N. Zargar, R. D. J. Smith, A. J. Carr. Mechanical properties of all-suture anchors for rotator cuff repair. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:82–89. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.62.BJR-2016-0225.R1

Suture anchor have been used in surgical procedure of tendon or ligament repair. Recently, there has been developed an all suture anchor (soft anchor) which can be used even when the insertion area is narrow. But, the stability of soft anchors due to narrow zone has not been elucidated. This purpose of this study was to investigate stability of soft anchors with respect to their fixation intervals. Polyurethane foams with two different bone densities (10 pcf; 0.16g / cm³, 20 pcf; 0.32g / cm³) were used. All suture anchors and conventional suture anchors were fixed at 10mm, 5mm, and 2.5mm intervals. The failure load was measured using a mechanical testing machine. The average load to failure of conventional suture anchor were 200.4N, 200.2N, 184.7N in the 10mm, 5mm and 2.5mm interval with 10pcf foam bones and 200.4 N, 200.2 N and 184.7 N with the 20 pcf foam bone respectively. Average load to failure load of soft anchor was 97.3N, 93.9N and 76.9N with 10pcf foam bones and 200.4 N, 200.2 N and 184.7 N with 20 pcf foam bone. Suture screw spacing and bone density are important factors in anchor pullout strength. In osteoporotic bone density, insertion of the suture screw interval of 5 mm might be necessary

Traditional procedures for orthopedic total joint replacements have relied upon bone cement to achieve long-term implant fixation. This remains the gold standard in number of procedures including TKR and PKR. In many cases however, implants fixed with cement have proven susceptible to aseptic loosening and 3. rd. body wear concerns. These issues have led to a shift away from cement fixation and towards devices that rely on the natural osteoconductive properties of bone and the ability of porous-coated implants to initiate on-growth and in-growth at the bone interface, leading to more reliable fixation. To facilitate long-term fixation through osseointegration, several mechanical means have been utilized as supplemental mechanism to aid in stabilizing the prostheses. These methods have included integrated keels and bone screws. The intent of these components is to limit implant movement and provide a stable environment for bone ingrowth to occur. Both methods have demonstrated limitations on safety and performance including bone fracture due keel induced stresses, loosening due to inconsistent pressfit of the keel, screw-thread stripping in cancellous bone, head-stripping, screw fracture, screw loosening, and screw pullout. An alternative method of fixation utilizing blade-based anchoring has been developed to overcome these limitations. The bladed-based fixation concept consists of a titanium alloy anchor with a “T-shaped” cross-section and sharped-leading end that can be impacted directly into bone. The profile is configured to have a bladed region on the horizontal crossbar of the “T” for engagement into bone and a solid rail at the other end to mates with a conforming slot on the primary body of the prosthesis. A biased chisel tip is added to the surface of the leading blade edge to draw the bone between the anchor's horizontal surface and surface of the implant, thus generating a compressive force at the bone-to-prothesis interface. The anchoring mechanism has been successfully been integrated into the tibial tray component of a partial knee replacement; an implant component that has a clinical history of revision due to loosening. A detailed investigation into the pulloff strength, wear debris generation, compressive-force properties, and susceptibility to tibial bone fracture was carried out on the anchor technology when integrated in a standard tibial tray of a partial knee replacement. When tested in rigid polyurethane bone foam (Sawbones, Grade 15) the pulloff strength of the construct increased by 360% when utilizing the anchor. The tibial tray and anchor construct were cycled under compressive loading and demonstrated no evidence of interface corrosion or wear debris generation after 1 million cycles. In addition, the anchor mechanism was shown to generate 340N of compressive force at the tibial tray-to-bone interface when evaluated with pressure sensitive film (Fuji Prescale, Medium Grade). Finally, the ultimate compressive load to induce tibial fracture was shown to increase by 17% for the anchored tray as compared to a traditional keeled tray when tested in an anatomic tibial sawbones model; and by 19% when evaluated in human cadaveric tibias. For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly

Introduction. Suture anchor have been used in surgical procedure of tendon or ligament repair. Recently, there has been developed an all suture anchor (soft anchor) which can be used even when the insertion area is narrow. But, the stability of soft anchors due to narrow zone has not been elucidated. This purpose of this study was to investigate stability of soft anchors with respect to their fixation intervals. Methods. Polyurethane foams with two different bone densities (10 pcf; 0.16g / cm³, 20 pcf; 0.32g / cm) were used. All suture anchors and conventional suture anchors were fixed at 10mm, 5mm, and 2.5mm intervals. The failure load was measured using a mechanical testing machine. Results. The average load to failure of conventional suture anchor were 97.3N, 93.9N, and 76.9N in the 10mm, 5mm and 2.5mm interval with 10pcf foam bones and 200.4 N, 200.2 N and 184.7 N with the 20 pcf foam bone respectively. Average load to failure load of soft anchor was 97.3N, 93.9N and 76.9N with 10pcf foam bones and 200.4 N, 200.2 N and 184.7 N with 20 pcf foam bone. Conclusion. Suture screw spacing and bone density are important factors in anchor pullout strength. In osteoporotic bone density, insertion of the suture screw interval of 5 mm might be necessary

To assess the current literature on suture anchor placement for the purpose of identifying factors that lead to suture anchor perforation and techniques that reduce the likelihood of complications. Three databases (PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE) were searched, and two reviewers independently screened the resulting literature. Methodological quality of all included papers was assessed using Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment tool. Results are presented in a narrative summary fashion using descriptive statistics. Fourteen studies were included in this review. Four case series (491 patients, 56.6% female, mean age 33.9 years), nine controlled cadaveric/laboratory studies (111 cadaveric hips and 12 sawbones, 42.2% female, mean age 60.0 years), and one randomized controlled trial (37 hips, 55.6% female, mean age 34.2 years) were included. Anterior cortical perforation by suture anchors led to pain and impingement of pelvic neurovascular structures. The anterior acetabular positions (three to four o'clock) had the thinnest bone, smallest rim angles, and highest incidence of articular perforation. Drilling angles from 10° to 20° measured off the coronal plane were acceptable. The mid-anterior (MA) and distal anterolateral (DALA) portals were used successfully, with some studies reporting difficulty placing anchors at anterior locations via the DALA portal. Small-diameter (< 1 .8-mm) suture anchors had a lower in vivo incidence of articular perforation with similar stability and pull-out strength in biomechanical studies. Suture anchors at anterior acetabular rim positions (3–4 o'clock) should be inserted with caution. Large-diameter (>2.3-mm) suture anchors increase the likelihood of articular perforation without increasing labral stability. Inserting small-diameter (< 1 .8-mm) all-suture suture anchors (ASAs) from 10° to 20° using curved suture anchor drill guides, may increase safe insertion angles from all cutaneous portals. Direct arthroscopic visualization, use of fluoroscopy, distal-proximal insertion, and the use of nitinol wire can help prevent articular violation

Aim. Review causes of anchor fixation failures in patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Methods. Between 2003 and 2006, 650 arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs were performed by the senior author. Of these, anchor fixation failure occurred in fifteen patients. A retrospective review was undertaken to find out the reasons for their failure. Results. There were ten women and five men, age range 46-84 (mean age 64). Thirteen underwent repair with metallic knotless anchors (Arthrocare), and two with 5.5mm biodegradable screw anchors (Arthrotek). Knotless anchors were used to repair six massive, one large, three medium and three small tears. The two patients with biodegradable anchor repair had only small tears, each held with a single anchor. All but one failure was apparent at six weeks. One metallic anchor failed at four months. Twelve knotless anchors failed through pull-out and one broke. Both biodegradable anchors broke at the eyelet. Discussion. The increasing strength of suture material has shifted the weak point away from the suture-tendon interface towards the anchor-bone interface. Arthroscopic techniques permit a wider age range of patients suitable for surgery, each with varying degrees of osteoporosis in the proximal humerus, increasing risk of anchor pull-out. Multiple anchor insertions to reduce stiff, retracted tears may also lead to weakening of the bone table in the footprint area of the greater tuberosity. Incomplete anchor deployment, commonly at the curved cortical bone edge of greater tuberosity can also lead to failure. Conclusion. Anchors failed if tension in the repair exceeds the bones capacity to retain the anchor, if the anchor is incompletely deployed or if one anchor is stressed beyond its tension capability. We recommend that consideration is given to spreading the tension of the tissue repair amongst the anchors placed in the greater tuberosity

Suture anchors are widely used to secure tendons and ligaments to bone during both arthroscopic and open surgery. However, single stage insertion suture anchors, i.e. anchors that could be inserted without predrilling of the bone, are not currently available. We aimed to record the impact needed for insertion of the new design single stage suture anchors, and to compare their pull out strength with another range of commercially available suture anchors. The force required to insert the new design of suture anchors was investigated using an impact hammer capable of recording the number and force of each of the hits. The anchors were inserted in a consistent manner into animal (porcine) bone at sites analogous to common anchor sites used in clinical practice. Pull out strength was assessed using a digital force gauge after tying the suture to create a secure loop. Thereafter, force was applied steadily until either the anchor or the suture failed and compared with a popular range of commercially available suture anchors (Mitek). Our initial investigations using prototype designs for small, medium and large anchors compared favourably with the Mini-mitek, GII, and Superanchor range of Mitek anchors. Essentially the most common point of failure for each of the suture anchor families was the suture itself with both suture anchor systems performing similarly. In addition, similar pull out strengths were demonstrated for both the Mitek and new design of suture anchors when loaded parallel, or at 90°, to the line of anchor insertion. The new design single stage suture anchors have an equivalent pull out strength compared with a popular commercially available family of suture anchors, but in addition have the significant advantage of being suitable for single stage insertion in many clinical settings

Aim: Review causes of anchor fixation failures in patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Methods: Between 2003 and 2006, 650 arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs were performed by the senior author. Of these, anchor fixation failure occurred in fifteen patients. A retrospective review was undertaken to find out the reasons for their failure. Results: There were ten women and five men, age range 46–84 (mean age 64). Thirteen underwent repair with metallic knotless anchors (Arthrocare), and two with 5.5mm biodegradable screw anchors (Arthrotek). Knotless anchors were used to repair six massive, one large, three medium and three small tears. The two patients with biodegradable anchor repair had only small tears, each held with a single anchor. All but one failure was apparent at six weeks. One metallic anchor failed at four months. Twelve knotless anchors failed through pull-out and one broke. Both biodegradable anchors broke at the eyelet. Discussion: The increasing strength of suture material has shifted the weak point away from the suture-tendon interface towards the anchor-bone interface. Arthroscopic techniques permit a wider age range of patients suitable for surgery, each with varying degrees of osteoporosis in the proximal humerus, increasing risk of anchor pull-out. Multiple anchor insertions to reduce stiff, retracted tears may also lead to weakening of the bone table in the footprint area of the greater tuberosity. Incomplete anchor deployment, commonly at the curved cortical bone edge of greater tuberosity can also lead to failure. Conclusion: Anchors failed if tension in the repair exceeds the bones capacity to retain the anchor, if the anchor is incompletely deployed or if one anchor is stressed beyond its tension capability. We recommend that consideration is given to spreading the tension of the tissue repair amongst the anchors placed in the greater tuberosity

Purpose: Suture anchors used for reinserting soft tissue on bony structures have been studied with the purpose of evaluating hold in bone. There has not however been any work on the influence of the eye design on suture resistance. The purpose of this work was to examine this aspect of the question. Material and methods: The following anchors were tested: Statak 4 (Zimmer, Warsaw, IN, USA), Corkscrew 3.5, Fastak 2.4 (Arthrex, Naples, FL, USA), PeBA C 6.5 (OBL, Scottsdale, AZ, USA), Mitek GII 5Mitek, Norwood, MA, USA), Harpoon 2 (Arthrotek, Warsaw, IN? USA), Ultrafix (Linvatec, Largo, FL, USA), Vitis 3.5 AND 5 (Tornier, St Isnier, France). The following suture threads were used: Vicryl dec 5, Flexidene dec 5, PDS dec 4. Three types of tests were performed on an Instron 8500+. To study loading at thread rupture, a loop with a constant length was placed under traction in the axis of the anchor until thread rupture. Two measurement modalities were used. For the first, static tension was applied to increase the linear load at the rate of 1.25 mm/s. In the second, cyclic traction applied tension five times at a frequency of 1 Hz with 10N loading increments. To study thread weakening in relation to each anchor, we imposed a back and forth movement on the strand running through the eye using a sinusoidal 10 mm movement at a frequency of 0.03 Hz, one end of the thread being fixed and the other supporting a constant 20 N load. Each thread was tested in each anchor and each type of test was run three times. Results: Load at rupture of each thread was not affected significantly by the design of the anchor eyes. Rupture generally occurred at the knot level, sometimes at the eye (Harpoon, Fastak, Vitis) for the Flexidene dec 5 thread. Conversely, there were important differences in the thread weakness tests: a knitted thread such as Vicryl was much stronger than the two other threads tested, irrespective of the anchor. Furthermore, resistance for the dynamic test was very variable for the different anchors: 100±20 cycles for corkscrew 3.5 and 3±1 cycles for Vitis 3.5 with Vicryl or 6+/1 cycles for Harpoon 2 with Flexidene. Conclusion: The design and finishing of each eye had an effect on the resistance of thread moving through the eye. For anchors which weakened thread after a few back and forth movements, it can be assumed that simple knotting damages the thread to a point where early failure occurs at reinsertion. The best results were obtained when the anchor eye had a bevelled groove

We assessed a new knotless anchor system (Opus AutoCuff, ArthroCare Sports Medicine), which was designed to repair torn rotator cuffs. This knotless anchor winches cuff tissue into the bone with a mattress suture that is cinched into place without the need for knots. We reviewed patients who underwent arthroscopic repair with this technique with a minimum follow up of one year. This is prospective study of a consecutive series of the first one hundred patients who underwent arthroscopic cuff repair with the Autocuff system in 2005. Nine were lost to follow-up leaving ninety-one were available for review. All sizes of cuff tear were addressed and in all one hundred and eighty anchors were deployed. There were thirty seven men and sixty seven women with an average age of 69.4 years (range 36–85 years) Follow-up was by clinical assessment, cuff ultrasound and plain radiographs one year after surgery (12–20 months). Pain relief was described as good to excellent in 93% of patients and Constant scores improved by an average of 34 points with 48.5% being good to excellent, 39.4% fair and 12.1% poor. Nine anchors (5%) in eight patients had pulled out at one year, of which three were symptomatic. Suture repair poses varied points of weakness; loose knots, suture attrition and screw toggle all contribute to failure. We have shown that cuff repair by this method appears to be effective up to one year. It is important, however, to spread the tension of the repair with more than one anchor when treating larger tears

One of the recently introduced anchors is the absorbable suture anchor BIOKNOTLESS-RC, a press-fit anchor whose special feature is the knotless reconstruction of the ruptured rotator cuff. We compared the new knotless anchor BIOKNOTLESS-RC with established anchors. The absorbable pressfit anchor BIOKNOTLESS-RC (DePuyMitek, Raynham, MA, USA), the titanium screw anchor SUPER-REVO 5mm and the tilting anchor ULTRASORB (both ConmedLinvatec, Largo, FL, USA) were tested 12 times in the greater tuberosity of human cadaveric humeri (mean age: 74 years). They were inserted according to the manufacturers instructions with the supplied suture material. An incremental cyclic loading was performed, starting with 75N. Until failure the tensile load was increased by 25N after every 50 cycles. The ultimate failure loads, the anchor displacements and the modes of failure were recorded. The anchor displacement of the BIOKNOTLESS-RC (15.3mm) after the first cycle with 75N was significantly higher than with the two others (SUPER-REVO 2.1mm, ULTRASORB: 2.7mm). The ultimate failure loads of the tested anchors were comparable: BIOKNOTLESS-RC 150N, SUPER-REVO 150N, ULTRASORB 151N (p> 0,05). Rupture of the suture material at the eyelet occurred more frequently with the SUPER-REVO. BIOKNOTLESS-RC and ULTRASORB showed a tendency towards anchor pullout. Our results do not confirm the higher pullout strength of metal anchors, which was found in other studies. Knotless anchors facilitate surgery by eliminating the technically challenging step of arthroscopic knot tying. The disadvantage of the BIOKNOTLESS-RC is its unsatisfactory primary stability. Its initial displacement of a mean of 15.3 mm is clinically significant and jeopardizes the rotator cuff repair. Because of the high initial displacement and the possible gap formation between tendon and bone, the use of the BIOKNOTLESS-RC in a zone of minor tension, for instance as a second-row anchor in double row technique only is recommend

Objective. The purpose of this study was to compare outcome of arthroscopic stabilization of the shoulder using knotted and knotless anchors and two rehabilitation regimes. Method. This is a retrospective study of 58 patients who underwent arthroscopic shoulder stabilization over a five year period (2005–2009). There were two groups of patients. In group A stabilization was performed using absorbable anchors with a knotted technique using No.1 PDS suture. This group had an early mobilization regime. In group B a knotless anchor technique was used with PEEK anchors and nonabsorbable sutures. The patients in this group were immobilised in a sling for 6 weeks. There were a total of 58 patients, 37 in group A and 21 in group B. The mean age of patients undergoing the procedure was 35.7. There were a total of 23 males and 14 females in group A and 15 males and 6 females in group B. The number of dislocations prior to surgery ranged from 0 to multiple times a day. Patients had a mean follow up of 5 years (three to seven years - 2005 to 2009) and subjective shoulder function was evaluated using Oxford instability score and self-assessment questionnaire. Results. The Shoulder scores showed improvement in both groups and there were no significant differences in redislocation rates and patient satisfaction scores with 20 patients in group A and 11 patients in group B going back to sporting activities. Conclusion. Since there were no significant differences in shoulder scores in both groups our conclusion was that secure fixation was what mattered irrespective of the type of anchor used or the physiotherapy regimen

The behaviour of two different methods of reattachment of the flexor digitorum profundus tendon insertion was assessed. Cyclical testing simulating the first 5 days of a passive mobilisation protocol was used to compare the micro Mitek anchor to the modified-Bunnell pull-out suture. Twelve fresh-frozen cadaveric fingers were dissected to the insertion of the FDP tendon. The FDP insertion was then sharply dissected from the distal phalanx and repaired using one of two methods: group 1 -modified Bunnell pullout suture using 3/0 Prolene; group 2 micro Mitek anchor loaded with 3/0 Ethibond inserted into the distal phalanx. Each repaired finger was mounted on to a material testing machine using pneumatic clamps. We cyclically tested the repair between 2N and 15N using a load control of 5N/s for a total of 500 cycles. Gap formation at the tendon bone interface was measured every 100 cycles. No specimens failed during cyclical testing. After 500 cycles, gap formation of the tendon-bone interface was 6.6mm (SD = 1.2mm), and 2.1 mm (SD = 0.3mm) for the pullout technique and the micro Mitek anchor repair respectively. Concerns related to suture anchors, such as anchor failure or protrusion, joint penetration, and anchor-suture junction failure, were not encountered in this study. Cyclical loading results suggest that the repair achieved with both methods of fixation is sufficient to avoid failure. However, significant gap formation at the tendon-bone interface in the modified Bunnell group is of concern, suggesting it may not be the ideal fixation method

Introduction. This study was performed prospectively and randomly to compare clinical outcomes of modified-Brostrom procedure using single and double suture anchor for chronic lateral ankle instability. Material & Methods. Forty patients were followed up for more than 2 years after modified-Brostrom procedure for chronic lateral ankle instability. Twenty modified-Brostrom procedures with single suture anchor and 20 procedures with double suture anchor randomly assigned were performed by one surgeon. The mean age was 30.6 years, and the mean follow-up period was 2.6 years. The clinical evaluation was performed according to the Karlsson scale and Sefton grading system. The measurement of talar tilt angle and anterior talar translation was performed through anterior and varus stress radiographs. Results. At the last follow-up, the Karlsson scale had improved significantly from preoperative average 45.4 points to 90.5 points in single suture anchor group, from 46.2 points to 91.3 points in double suture anchor group. There were 8 excellent, 10 good, and 2 fair results according to the Sefton grading system in single anchor group, and 9 excellent, 8 good, 3 fair results in double anchor group. Therefore, 18 cases (90%) in single anchor group and 17 cases (85%) in double anchor group achieved satisfactory results. Talar tilt angle had improved significantly from preoperative average 15.7° to 6.1° in single anchor group, from 16.8° to 4.2° in double anchor group. There was significant difference in postoperative talar tilt angle between single and double anchor group. Conclusion. Significant differences in clinical and functional outcomes were not found between single and double suture anchor technique. On stress radiographs for evaluation of mechanical stability, modified-Brostrom procedure using double anchor showed less talar tilt angle than single anchor technique

A 18-year-old woman patient suffering from JCA was operated on non-dominant left shoulder joint destruction. The dysplasia of the affected side was clearly recognisable on the X-ray befor the operation as compared to the other side. The smallest of the prothesis typs (De Puy Global, Biomet Modular) couldn’t be implanted. So we have used an other method. We have achived good results for years by using Tuto-plast‚ Dura mater (Tutogen Medical GmbH) in operating interposition elbow arthtroplasty of RA patients. This was the basic idea in this case to apply shouldes joint interposition arthroplasty. There have been previous publications on other interposition tecniques. Operations technique:. Traditionally we approached the shoulder in deltopectoral sulcus. After the subscapular muscle tenotomy subtotal synovectomy happened, later pannus and osteophyts were removed from the humeral head. Then the surface of the head was refreshened, then arronund the anatomic neck titanium screws ( ORFI-II‚ anchor, Technomed) were placed and Tutoplast placed on the head was anchored to them. There are no shouldes pains 4 years after the operations, no radiologcal progression can be experienced. The range of motion is under the mesured value of the RA group of patient having shoulder prothesis. Despice of this fact the patient is able to look after herself and do the daily routine. The patient is fully satisfied with the operation. Conclusion:. Althaugh important conclusion can’t be drawn from one case but sometimes it gives a good alternativ solution in the area of prothetics in shoulder dysplasy of different origins

Restoring of anatomic footprint may improve the healing and mechanical strength of repaired tendons. A double row of suture anchors increases the tendon-bone contact area, reconstituting a more anatomic configuration of the rotator cuff footprint. We aimed to investigate if there were differences in clinical and imaging outcome between single row and double row suture anchor technique repairs of rotator cuff tears. We recruited 60 patients affected by a rotator cuff tear diagnosed on clinical grounds, magnetic resonance imaging evidence of cuff tear and inadequate response to nonoperative management, an unretracted and sufficiently mobile full-thickness rotator cuff lesion to allow a double row repair found at the time of surgery. In 30 patients, rotator cuff repair was performed with single row suture anchor technique (Group 1). In the other 30 patients, rotator cuff repair was performed with double row suture anchor technique (Group 2). 8 patients (4 in the single row anchor repair group and 4 in the double row anchor repair group) were lost at follow up. A modified UCLA shoulder rating scale was used to evaluate preoperative and postoperative shoulder pain, function and range of motion, strength and patient satisfaction. All patients received a post-operative MR arthrography at the final follow up appointment. At the 2 year follow-up, no statistically significant differences were seen with respect to the UCLA score and ROM values. Post-operative MR arthrography at 2 years of follow up in group 1 showed intact tendons in 14 patients, partial thickness defects in 10 patients and full thickness defects in 2 patients. In group 2, MR arthrography showed an intact rotator cuff in 18 patients, partial thickness defects in 7 patients, and full thickness defects in 1 patient. Biomechanical studies comparing single versus double row suture anchor technique for rotator cuff repair show that a double row of suture anchors increases the tendonbone contact area and restores the anatomic rotator cuff footprint, providing a better environment for tendon healing. Our study shows that there are no advantages in using a double row suture anchor technique to restore the anatomical footprint. The mechanical advantages evidenced in cadaveric studies do not translate into superior clinical performance when compared with the more traditionally, technically less demanding, and economically more advantageous technique of single row suture anchor repair

Introduction and Aims: To evaluate the technique of the knotless suture anchor for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability. Method: 109 patients were reviewed. Each patient underwent a standardised procedure by the same surgeon under a regional interscalene block and/or general anaesthesia. An average of three anchors were placed in the 3, 4 and 5 o’clock positions. 40 patients had additional thermal shrinkage to reduce excess capsular volume. Each patient was assessed using the Constant, Rowe and Walch-Duplay scores. Results: Follow-up period was 18 months, with an average of two years. The average operating time was one hour. Four patients (3.6%) redislocated following surgery. Two of these patients had a glenoid bone deficiency of > 20% and associated full thickness rotator cuff tears, one had an associated humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligament (HAGL) lesion, which was not repaired arthroscopically, and one had returned to contact sports as early as 12 weeks after surgery. Three patients had single episodes of subluxations that have not required revision. The average Rowe score was 90.8, average Constant score was 89.9 and the average Walch-Duplay score was 81.4. Conclusion: Early results indicate that capsulolabral reconstruction using the knotless suture anchor is an effective procedure in the treatment of post-traumatic anterior shoulder instability. The incorporation of a south to north capsular shift technique during labral reattachment reduces the necessity of additional thermal to reduce redundant capsular volume. Relative contraindications of this technique include; presence of a HAGL lesion, and anterior glenoid bone deficiency. The procedure may be performed as a day case under regional anaesthesia, has a high index of patient satisfaction and is an acceptable alternative to open surgery

To review the medium term results of acute repair of rupture of the biceps brachii insertion using a single incision bone anchor anatomical repair. Three patients with acute biceps brachii tendon insertion ruptures and treated surgically using a single incision bone anchor anatomical repair underwent dynamometer strength assessment of both arms using a KinCom isokinetic dynamometer. This was performed shortly after completion of rehabilitation (7–12 months after surgery) and again at 3.3 years after surgery. All patients were male (mean age 40.3 years, range 34 to 53). Surgery was performed less than 7 days post injury using the same technique. Isokinetic assessment was performed at a mean of 8.7 months post surgery (range 7 to 12 months) and again at assessment (maintained at medium term assessment). All patients had returned to their full premorbid occupation and level of sporting activity. Dynamometer results of a repaired dominant limb equated to approximately the strength of a normal non dominant limb, a repaired non dominant side equated to two thirds the strength of a normal dominant limb at early assessment. This relationship was maintained at the medium term assessment, however there was a substantial increase in strength in both affected and unaffected arms. The one incision approach, using bone anchors, is recommended as the method of choice providing an optimal surgical repair with a reduction in the risk factors theoretically associated with anatomical surgical repair. Our short-term results are comparable with other quantitative results published (for both bone anchor and non-bone anchor procedure). The medium term results how a measurable increase in strength of the repaired limb although the strength relative to the uninjured side remains the same as at early assessment