Stitch positioning influences the suture hold in supraspinatus tendon repair

Purpose

This study was designed to compare the pull-out strength of simple suture stitches in human supraspinatus tendons with respect to the position of the rotator cable.

Methods

Fifty-four tests were performed on 6 intact, human supraspinatus tendons, to assess the cutout strength of a simple suture configuration in different positions; medial to, lateral to, or within the rotator cable. Tendon thickness was measured and correlated for each positioned suture.

Results

Suture positioning lateral to or in the rotator cable showed significantly lower suture retention properties compared with positioning the suture medial to the cable (p = 0.002). In all tested specimens, the central stitch in the row medial to the rotator cable provided the optimum retention properties (mean: 191 N; SD: ± 44; p < 0.01), even after correcting for tendon thickness.

Conclusion

This study shows that it is desirable to identify the rotator cable and to pass sutures just medial to it, close to the middle of the tendon, which provided highest possible suture retention properties.     

Pullout strength of suture anchors in comparison with transosseous sutures for rotator cuff repair

Suture anchors are increasingly gaining importance in rotator cuff surgery. This means they will be gradually replacing transosseous sutures. The purpose of this study was to compare the stability of transosseous sutures with different suture anchors with regard to their pullout strength depending on bone density. By means of bone densitometry (CT scans), two groups of human humeral head specimens were determined: a healthy and a osteopenic bone group. Following anchor systems were being tested: SPIRALOK™ 5.0 mm (resorbable, DePuy Mitek), Super Revo 5 mm (titanium, Linvatec), UltraSorb (resorbable, Linvatec) and the double U-sutures with Orthocord™ USP 2 (partly resorbable, DePuy Mitek) and Ethibond Excel 2 (non-resorbable, Ethicon). The suture anchors/double U-sutures were inserted in the greater tuberosity 12 times. An electromechanical testing machine was used for cyclic loading with power increasing in stages. We recorded the ultimate failure loads, the system displacements and the modes of failure. The suture anchors tended to bring about higher ultimate failure loads than the transosseous double U-sutures. This difference was significant in the comparison of the Ethibond suture and the SPIRALOK 5.0 mm—both in healthy and osteopenic bone. Both the suture materials and the SPIRALOK 5.0 mm showed a significant difference in pullout strength on either healthy or osteopenic bone; the titanium anchor SuperRevo 5 mm and the tilting anchor UltraSorb did not show any significant difference in healthy or osteopenic bone. There was no significant difference concerning system displacement (healthy and osteopenic bone) between the five anchor systems tested. The pullout strength of transosseous sutures is neither on healthy nor on osteopenic bone higher than that of suture anchors. Therefore, even osteopenic bone does not constitute a valid reason for the surgeon to perform open surgery by means of transosseous sutures. The choice of sutures in osteopenic bone is of little consequence anyway since it is mostly the bone itself which is the limiting factor.     

Single incision, transosseous suture repair technique for acute distal biceps tendon rupture

We describe a technique for repair of the distal biceps tendon using a single anterior incision, limited volardissection, and transosseous sutures through the radial tuberosity. This technique is simple, safe, and strong, allowing for prompt rehabilitation and recovery. Unlike the two-incision technique, there is no risk for heterotopic ossification or proximal radioulnar synostosis. Careful and limited dissection results in a low risk for iatrogenic neurovascular injury. Transosseous sutures have been shown to be stronger than suture anchors, allowing for more aggressive early motion and an early return to full motion. In addition, there is no additional cost for using transosseous sutures, as opposed to suture anchors or Endobutton (Arthrex Inc., Naples, FL), which may be quite expensive     

The use of suture anchors in repair of the ruptured patellar tendon: a biomechanical study

BACKGROUND: Rupture of the patellar tendon is a disabling injury that usually requires surgical treatment. The standard method of repair involves placing suture loops through transpatellar tunnels. The use of suture anchors in patellar tendon repair has not been previously described. HYPOTHESIS: No difference exists in the amount of gap formation during cyclic loading or in ultimate load-to-failure strength between repairs performed with anchors and those performed with 2 types of transpatellar sutures. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Six matched pairs of cadaveric knees were tested in a custom biomechanical apparatus based on an established model. Repairs were performed using either suture anchors with No. 2 FiberWire or transpatellar suture tunnels using 2 different types of suture-No. 5 Ethibond and No. 2 FiberWire. Gap formation across the repair site during 250 cycles of extension as well as ramp-up load to failure were measured for each repair. RESULTS: The mean total gap formation across the repair site at 250 cycles was 4.1 +/- 1.9 mm for the suture anchor group, 6.7 +/- 1.8 mm for the FiberWire tunnel group, and 8.5 +/- 2.7 mm for the Ethibond tunnel group. Mean load to failure was 779 +/- 183 N, 730 +/- 83 N, and 763 +/- 231 N, respectively. CONCLUSION: Significantly less gap formation throughout 250 cycles (P = .009) and no difference in load to failure occurred with patellar tendon repairs performed with suture anchors as compared with repairs performed with transpatellar tunnels. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The newly described method, using suture anchors for repair of patellar tendon ruptures, may be clinically equal or superior to the established method of using transpatellar tunnels.     

A meta-analysis of open versus arthroscopic Bankart repair using suture anchors

Purpose of this study is to conduct a meta-analysis comparing the results of open and arthroscopic Bankart repair using suture anchors in recurrent traumatic anterior shoulder instability. Using Medline Pubmed, Cochrane and Embase databases we performed a search of all published articles. We included only studies that compared open and arthroscopic repair using suture anchors. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square test. Six studies met the inclusion criteria. The total number of patients was 501, 234 suture anchors and 267 open. The rate of recurrent instability in the arthroscopic group was 6% versus 6.7% in the open group; rate of reoperation was 4.7% in the arthroscopic group vs. 6.6% in open (difference not statistically significant). The difference was statistically significant only in the studies after 2002 (2.9% of recurrence in the arthroscopic group vs. 9.2% in open; 2.2% of reoperation in the arthroscopic group vs. 9.2% in open). Results regarding function couldn’t be combined because of non-homogeneous scores reported in the original articles, but the arthroscopic treatment led to better functional results. Arthroscopic repair using suture anchors results in similar redislocation and reoperation rate compared to open Bankart repair; however, we need larger and more homogeneous prospective studies to confirm these findings.     

Posterosuperior suture granuloma impingement after arthroscopic SLAP repair using suture anchors: a case report

Arthroscopic refixation of the glenoid labrum has become a standard treatment of type II SLAP lesions although postoperative results are not uniformly good due to factors which are yet unclear. We present the case of an active overhead athlete with an intraarticular posterosuperior impingement syndrome arising from a suture granuloma formation complicating the postoperative course after arthroscopic SLAP repair. The symptoms resolved completely following revision arthroscopy during which the granuloma and the permanent sutures were removed. Implant related complications should be considered when patients present with recurrent pain after arthroscopic SLAP repair using suture anchors, in particular during overhead activity.     

Tendon-bone interface motion in transosseous suture and suture anchor rotator cuff repair techniques

BACKGROUND: Although many studies involving rotator cuff repair fixation have focused on ultimate fixation strength and ability to restore the tendon's native footprint, no studies have characterized the stability of the repair with regard to motion between the tendon and repair site footprint. HYPOTHESIS: Suture anchor fixation for rotator cuff repair has greater interface motion between tendon and bone than does transosseous suture fixation. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Twelve fresh-frozen human cadaveric shoulders were tested in a custom device to position the shoulder in internal and external rotations with simulated supraspinatus muscle loading. Tendon motion relative to the insertional footprint on the greater tuberosity was determined optically using a digital camera rigidly connected to the humerus, with the humerus positioned at 60 degrees of internal rotation and 60 degrees of external rotation. Testing was performed for the intact tendon, a complete supraspinatus tear, a suture anchor repair, and a transosseous tunnel repair. RESULTS: Difference in tendon-bone interface motion when compared with the intact tendon was 7.14 +/- 3.72 mm for the torn rotator cuff condition, 2.35 +/- 1.26 mm for the suture anchor repair, and 0.02 +/- 1.18 mm for the transosseous suture repair. The transosseous suture repair demonstrated significantly less motion when compared with the torn rotator cuff and suture anchor repair conditions (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Transosseous suture repair compared with suture anchor repair demonstrated superior tendon fixation with reduced motion at the tendon-to-tuberosity interface. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Development of new fixation techniques for arthroscopic and open rotator cuff repairs should attempt to minimize interface motion of the tendon relative to the tuberosity.     

Sports activity after arthroscopic superior labral repair using suture anchors in overhead-throwing athletes

PURPOSE: To evaluate the results of arthroscopic repair of type II superior labral anterior posterior lesions of the shoulder in overhead athletes. HYPOTHESIS: Such repair is useful for overhead athletes in terms of postoperative sports activity. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: The study group was composed of 40 patients with a mean age of 24 years (range, 15-38 years); mean follow-up was 41 months (range, 24-58 months). They were divided into an overuse (n=22) and a trauma group (n=18). The authors used 2 suture anchors loaded with a nonabsorbable suture at the 11-o'clock and 1-o'clock positions through the anterosuperior and lateral trans-rotator cuff portal. A modified Rowe score and postoperative athletic activities were evaluated. RESULTS: After arthroscopic repair, mean modified Rowe scores improved from 27.5 to 92.1 points (P<.0001). Rated on this scale, the results were excellent in 30 (75%), good in 6 (15%), and fair in 4 (10%) athletes; there were no poor results. Satisfactory outcomes were achieved in 36 (90%) of these patients; 30 (75%) experienced a return to the preinjury level. The complete return rate of baseball players in the overuse group was lower than that of other overhead athletes in the trauma group. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic superior labral repair is a safe and reliable procedure in overhead athletes.     

Nonabsorbable versus absorbable suture anchors for open Bankart repair. A prospective, randomized comparison

Suture anchors facilitate the surgical repair of capsuloligamentous structures to bone. Bioabsorbable suture anchors, which obviate potential pitfalls in the periarticular use of permanent implants, have recently become available. We randomly assigned 40 patients to undergo modified Bankart shoulder repairs with either nonabsorbable or absorbable suture anchors. The patients had a history of recurrent traumatic anterior instability that had not improved with nonoperative management. The average patient age was 22 years (range, 17 to 46), and the average preoperative Rowe score was 47 points in the nonabsorbable anchor group and 47 points in the absorbable anchor group. Average postoperative Rowe scores were 96 and 93 points, respectively. There was one failed result in the nonabsorbable anchor group and two in the absorbable anchor group. No statistically significant subjective or objective differences were found at an average of 25 months postoperatively. Our results reveal that, in this application, bioabsorbable suture anchors are a viable option for the repair of soft tissue to bone.     

Hamstring graft fixation in MPFL reconstruction at the patella using a transosseous suture technique

Controversy still exists about fixation methods of a hamstring graft to the patella in case of medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction. This article presents a surgical technique of hamstring tendon graft fixation to the anatomical MPFL insertion on the patella using transosseous sutures. A superficial bony sulcus is created at the anatomical MPFL insertion site on the medial patellar rim with a bur. A looped hamstring tendon graft is fixed to this superficial sulcus by a pair of nonresorbable transosseous sutures passed across the patella. The retinaculum is sutured on top of the hamstring tendon graft at the level of the patella for additional fixation. The technique avoids bone tunnels as well as hardware at the patella. It reduces the risk of intraoperative or postoperative patella fracture or implant-related complications. The stable transosseous fixation technique allows for early rehabilitation.     

A new technique: in vitro suture anchor fixation has superior yield strength to bone tunnel fixation for distal biceps tendon repair

BACKGROUND: Suture anchor and bone tunnel fixations are used for distal biceps tendon repairs and have not been compared. HYPOTHESIS: Suture anchor fixation is equal or superior to bone tunnel fixation. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled in vitro study. METHODS: A new fixation technique was compared to traditional bone tunnel fixation of distal biceps tendon ruptures between randomly selected sides of nine matched-pair, fresh-frozen elbow specimens from cadaveric donors (mean age = 74.7 years). Bone densities were determined. The distal biceps tendon was attached to the actuator of a servohydraulic load frame and loaded to tensile failure at a constant rate of 4 mm/sec. Bone density, sex, age, side, tuberosity area, repair, failure type, repair stiffness, and yield strength were compared. RESULTS: Superior yield strength of suture anchor fixation (263 N) compared to bone tunnel fixation (203 N) (P = 0.0233) were demonstrated. When suture anchor fixation failure (1 of 9) occurred, the matched pair also failed. CONCLUSION: Suture anchor fixation offers an equal if not superior alternative to bone tunnel fixation for repair of the distal biceps tendon in the specimens tested. Clinical Relevance: Suture anchor fixation may be used for distal biceps tendon repairs.     

Initial fixation strength of flexible all-inside meniscus suture anchors in comparison to conventional suture technique and rigid anchors: biomechanical evaluation of new meniscus refixation systems

BACKGROUND: The newest generation of meniscus repair devices is designed to combine the benefits of the all-inside technique with the biomechanical properties of sutures. HYPOTHESIS: New flexible all-inside suture anchors have better fixation strength than rigid anchors, but there is no difference when compared to conventional horizontal and vertical mattress sutures. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: In fresh-frozen bovine menisci, initial fixation strength, stiffness, and failure mode of different meniscus fixation techniques (FastT-Fix, RapidLoc, Meniscus Arrow, horizontal and vertical 2.0 Ethibond sutures) were evaluated in a computer-based materials testing machine at a rate of 12.5 mm/sec. RESULTS: The vertical and horizontal FastT-Fix suture anchors were the strongest devices with regard to pullout strength, with no significant difference compared to the vertical 2-0 Ethibond sutures. Horizontal sutures, Meniscus Arrow, and RapidLoc had significantly lower pullout strength. Vertical and horizontal FastT-Fix suture anchors showed significantly higher stiffness than the other devices. CONCLUSIONS: Biomechanical properties of flexible all-inside meniscus anchors (FastT-Fix) are comparable to conventional vertical suture techniques. Characteristics of the flexible RapidLoc are comparable to rigid anchors (Meniscus Arrow). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: From the biomechanical point of view, flexible all-inside meniscus refixation devices are an alternative to conventional suture techniques and rigid meniscus anchors.     

Arthroscopic Bankart repair using suture anchors in athletes: patient selection and postoperative sports activity

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results in selected high-risk patients who underwent arthroscopic stabilization of shoulders with recurrent anterior instability. HYPOTHESIS: Arthroscopic stabilization using suture anchors is useful for athletes younger than 25 years or for contact athletes without a large bone loss of glenohumeral articulation. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: The study group comprised 55 patients, with a mean follow-up of 42 months (range, 25-72 months). Thirty-two patients had recurrent dislocations, 14 had recurrent subluxations, and 9 had recurrent subluxations after a single dislocation. Rowe score, range of motion, recurrence, and sports activities were evaluated. RESULTS: Mean Rowe score improved from 30.1 to 92.3 points; 45 scores (82%) were excellent, 5 (9%) good, 1 fair (2%), and 4 (7%) poor. Patients had lost a mean of 4 degrees of external rotation in adduction. Four (7%) had recurrence. The recurrence rate in contact athletes (9.5%, 2 of 21) was not statistically different from that in noncontact athletes (6%, 2 of 34). Forty-four (80%) returned at the same levels. The complete return rate in overhead-throwing athletes (68%, 17 of 25) was lower than that in nonoverhead athletes (90%, 27 of 30) (P = .0423). Five patients had unsatisfactory results. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic stabilization is a reliable procedure in selected high-risk patients.     

Surgical repair of the ruptured Achilles tendon: the cost-effectiveness of open versus percutaneous repair

Purpose

Recent meta-analyses have shown reduced re-rupture rates for the surgical management of Achilles ruptures. However, percutaneous repair has been demonstrated to lead to improved function and patient satisfaction but greater complications than open repair. In the current economic climate, it is reasonable to consider the financial cost of rupture management for both the patient and the provider. The cost-effectiveness of operative treatment of ruptures of the Achilles tendon was determined based upon theatre occupancy, clinic attendance and cast changes, operative complications and functional assessment score.

Methods

The cost-effectiveness of the surgical management of Achilles tendon ruptures between 2005 and 2011 in our unit was audited by comparing 49 patients receiving percutaneous repair to 35 patients whom had open repairs.

Results

There was no significant difference in complications between the two surgical techniques: (Open vs. Percutaneous) overall rates 14.3 versus 10.4 %: infection; 2.7 versus 2.0 %, transient sural nerve damage: 5.6 versus 8.1 %, wound breakdown: 2.8 versus 0.0 %, re-rupture: 2.8 versus 2.0 %. Achilles Total Rupture Scores (ATRS) were comparable [Open 89 (65–100) at 49 months vs. Percutaneous 88.8 (33–100) at 12 months (n.s.)]. Theatre occupancy (P < 0.00) and hospital stay (P < 0.00) were significantly longer with open repair [43 min (26–70) and 2.9 days (0–4)] compared to percutaneous repair [15 min (12–43) and 1.2 days (0–2)]. Excluding the costs of running the operating theatre, we have estimated the costs of surgery for open repair to be £935 and percutaneous repair to be £574.

Conclusions

This study suggests that percutaneous repair of the Achilles tendon resulted in reduced costs and yet had comparable outcome and complications rates to open repair in surgical management of the Achilles tendon. Percutaneous repair should be considered as the primary method of cost-effective surgical management of Achilles tendon rupture.

Level of evidence

A retrospective cohort study, Level III.     

Contact area and pressure in suture bridge rotator cuff repair using knotless lateral anchors

Purpose

To evaluate whether the use of knotless lateral anchors in a suture bridge construct produces better contact area and pressure parameters than a suture bridge construct with standard lateral anchors that require knots or a double-row repair. The hypothesis was that knotless lateral anchors would produce better contact area and pressure parameters than the other two constructs.

Methods

A total of fifteen matched pairs of cadaveric shoulders were divided into three groups. In Group 1, a suture bridge using knotless anchors for the lateral row was performed on five shoulders. A suture bridge using standard lateral row anchors that require knots was performed on the contralateral shoulders. In Group 2, suture bridge with knotless lateral row anchors was compared with double-row repair. In Group 3, suture bridge using standard lateral row anchors was compared with double-row repair. The contact conditions of the rotator cuff footprint were measured using pressure-sensitive film.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences between any of the techniques regarding contact area F(2, 15.7) = 3.09, P = 0.07 or mean contact pressure F(2, 15.1) = 2.35, P = 0.12. A post hoc power analysis suggests differences between techniques are likely less than 91–113 mm² for area and 0.071-0.089 N for pressure.

Conclusions

The use of knotless anchors in the lateral row of a suture bridge repair did not increase the footprint contact area or contact pressure when compared to a suture bridge repair requiring knots laterally or to a double-row repair.