Biomechanical comparison of a first- And a second-generation all-soft suture glenoid anchor

John Erickson, Frank Chiarappa, Jonathan Haskel, Justin Rice, Adam Hyatt, James Monica, Aman Dhawan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: All–soft tissue suture anchors provide advantages of decreased removal of bone and decreased glenoid volume occupied compared with traditional tap or screw-in suture anchors. Previous published data have led to biomechanical concerns with the use of first-generation all-soft suture anchors. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the load to 2-mm displacement and ultimate load to failure of a second-generation all-soft suture anchor, compared with a first-generation anchor and a traditional PEEK (polyether ether ketone) anchor. The null hypothesis was that the newer second-generation anchor will demonstrate no difference in loads to 2-mm displacement after cycling compared with first-generation all-soft suture anchors. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Twenty human cadaveric glenoids were utilized to create 97 total suture anchor sites, and 1 of 3 anchors were randomized and placed into each site: (1) first-generation all-soft suture anchor (Juggerknot; Biomet), (2) second-generation all-soft suture anchor (Suturefix; Smith & Nephew), and (3) a control PEEK anchor (Bioraptor; Smith & Nephew). After initial cyclic loading, load to 2 mm of displacement and ultimate load to failure were measured for each anchor. Results: After cyclic loading, the load to 2-mm displacement was significantly less in first-generation anchors compared with controls (P <.01). However, the load to 2-mm displacement was significantly greater in second-generation anchors compared with controls (P <.01). There was no difference in ultimate load to failure between the first- and second-generation all-soft suture anchors (P >.05). Conclusion: The newer generation all-soft suture anchors with a theoretically more rigid construct and deployment configuration demonstrate biomechanical characteristics (specifically, with load to 2-mm displacement after cyclic loading) that are improved over first-generation all-soft suture anchors and similar to a traditional solid tap-in anchor. The configuration of these newer generation all-soft suture anchors appears to mitigate the biomechanical concerns of decreased load to failure with first-generation all–soft tissue suture anchors. Clinical Relevance: The theoretical advantages of all-soft anchors may be particularly valuable in revision surgery or in cases where multiple anchors are being placed into a small anatomic area.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number2325967117717010
JournalOrthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine
Volume5
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2017

Fingerprint

Suture Anchors
Ketones
Ether
Cimetidine
Reoperation

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Erickson, John ; Chiarappa, Frank ; Haskel, Jonathan ; Rice, Justin ; Hyatt, Adam ; Monica, James ; Dhawan, Aman. / Biomechanical comparison of a first- And a second-generation all-soft suture glenoid anchor. In: Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2017 ; Vol. 5, No. 7.
@article{08cca7b4fb204ab6b38038a6b6aa0a51,
title = "Biomechanical comparison of a first- And a second-generation all-soft suture glenoid anchor",
abstract = "Background: All–soft tissue suture anchors provide advantages of decreased removal of bone and decreased glenoid volume occupied compared with traditional tap or screw-in suture anchors. Previous published data have led to biomechanical concerns with the use of first-generation all-soft suture anchors. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the load to 2-mm displacement and ultimate load to failure of a second-generation all-soft suture anchor, compared with a first-generation anchor and a traditional PEEK (polyether ether ketone) anchor. The null hypothesis was that the newer second-generation anchor will demonstrate no difference in loads to 2-mm displacement after cycling compared with first-generation all-soft suture anchors. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Twenty human cadaveric glenoids were utilized to create 97 total suture anchor sites, and 1 of 3 anchors were randomized and placed into each site: (1) first-generation all-soft suture anchor (Juggerknot; Biomet), (2) second-generation all-soft suture anchor (Suturefix; Smith & Nephew), and (3) a control PEEK anchor (Bioraptor; Smith & Nephew). After initial cyclic loading, load to 2 mm of displacement and ultimate load to failure were measured for each anchor. Results: After cyclic loading, the load to 2-mm displacement was significantly less in first-generation anchors compared with controls (P <.01). However, the load to 2-mm displacement was significantly greater in second-generation anchors compared with controls (P <.01). There was no difference in ultimate load to failure between the first- and second-generation all-soft suture anchors (P >.05). Conclusion: The newer generation all-soft suture anchors with a theoretically more rigid construct and deployment configuration demonstrate biomechanical characteristics (specifically, with load to 2-mm displacement after cyclic loading) that are improved over first-generation all-soft suture anchors and similar to a traditional solid tap-in anchor. The configuration of these newer generation all-soft suture anchors appears to mitigate the biomechanical concerns of decreased load to failure with first-generation all–soft tissue suture anchors. Clinical Relevance: The theoretical advantages of all-soft anchors may be particularly valuable in revision surgery or in cases where multiple anchors are being placed into a small anatomic area.",
author = "John Erickson and Frank Chiarappa and Jonathan Haskel and Justin Rice and Adam Hyatt and James Monica and Aman Dhawan",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/2325967117717010",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
journal = "Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine",
issn = "2325-9671",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "7",

}

Biomechanical comparison of a first- And a second-generation all-soft suture glenoid anchor. / Erickson, John; Chiarappa, Frank; Haskel, Jonathan; Rice, Justin; Hyatt, Adam; Monica, James; Dhawan, Aman.

In: Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 5, No. 7, 2325967117717010, 01.01.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Biomechanical comparison of a first- And a second-generation all-soft suture glenoid anchor

AU - Erickson, John

AU - Chiarappa, Frank

AU - Haskel, Jonathan

AU - Rice, Justin

AU - Hyatt, Adam

AU - Monica, James

AU - Dhawan, Aman

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - Background: All–soft tissue suture anchors provide advantages of decreased removal of bone and decreased glenoid volume occupied compared with traditional tap or screw-in suture anchors. Previous published data have led to biomechanical concerns with the use of first-generation all-soft suture anchors. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the load to 2-mm displacement and ultimate load to failure of a second-generation all-soft suture anchor, compared with a first-generation anchor and a traditional PEEK (polyether ether ketone) anchor. The null hypothesis was that the newer second-generation anchor will demonstrate no difference in loads to 2-mm displacement after cycling compared with first-generation all-soft suture anchors. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Twenty human cadaveric glenoids were utilized to create 97 total suture anchor sites, and 1 of 3 anchors were randomized and placed into each site: (1) first-generation all-soft suture anchor (Juggerknot; Biomet), (2) second-generation all-soft suture anchor (Suturefix; Smith & Nephew), and (3) a control PEEK anchor (Bioraptor; Smith & Nephew). After initial cyclic loading, load to 2 mm of displacement and ultimate load to failure were measured for each anchor. Results: After cyclic loading, the load to 2-mm displacement was significantly less in first-generation anchors compared with controls (P <.01). However, the load to 2-mm displacement was significantly greater in second-generation anchors compared with controls (P <.01). There was no difference in ultimate load to failure between the first- and second-generation all-soft suture anchors (P >.05). Conclusion: The newer generation all-soft suture anchors with a theoretically more rigid construct and deployment configuration demonstrate biomechanical characteristics (specifically, with load to 2-mm displacement after cyclic loading) that are improved over first-generation all-soft suture anchors and similar to a traditional solid tap-in anchor. The configuration of these newer generation all-soft suture anchors appears to mitigate the biomechanical concerns of decreased load to failure with first-generation all–soft tissue suture anchors. Clinical Relevance: The theoretical advantages of all-soft anchors may be particularly valuable in revision surgery or in cases where multiple anchors are being placed into a small anatomic area.

AB - Background: All–soft tissue suture anchors provide advantages of decreased removal of bone and decreased glenoid volume occupied compared with traditional tap or screw-in suture anchors. Previous published data have led to biomechanical concerns with the use of first-generation all-soft suture anchors. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the load to 2-mm displacement and ultimate load to failure of a second-generation all-soft suture anchor, compared with a first-generation anchor and a traditional PEEK (polyether ether ketone) anchor. The null hypothesis was that the newer second-generation anchor will demonstrate no difference in loads to 2-mm displacement after cycling compared with first-generation all-soft suture anchors. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Twenty human cadaveric glenoids were utilized to create 97 total suture anchor sites, and 1 of 3 anchors were randomized and placed into each site: (1) first-generation all-soft suture anchor (Juggerknot; Biomet), (2) second-generation all-soft suture anchor (Suturefix; Smith & Nephew), and (3) a control PEEK anchor (Bioraptor; Smith & Nephew). After initial cyclic loading, load to 2 mm of displacement and ultimate load to failure were measured for each anchor. Results: After cyclic loading, the load to 2-mm displacement was significantly less in first-generation anchors compared with controls (P <.01). However, the load to 2-mm displacement was significantly greater in second-generation anchors compared with controls (P <.01). There was no difference in ultimate load to failure between the first- and second-generation all-soft suture anchors (P >.05). Conclusion: The newer generation all-soft suture anchors with a theoretically more rigid construct and deployment configuration demonstrate biomechanical characteristics (specifically, with load to 2-mm displacement after cyclic loading) that are improved over first-generation all-soft suture anchors and similar to a traditional solid tap-in anchor. The configuration of these newer generation all-soft suture anchors appears to mitigate the biomechanical concerns of decreased load to failure with first-generation all–soft tissue suture anchors. Clinical Relevance: The theoretical advantages of all-soft anchors may be particularly valuable in revision surgery or in cases where multiple anchors are being placed into a small anatomic area.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85026749049&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85026749049&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/2325967117717010

DO - 10.1177/2325967117717010

M3 - Article

VL - 5

JO - Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

JF - Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

SN - 2325-9671

IS - 7

M1 - 2325967117717010

ER -