TY - JOUR
T1 - Editorial Commentary
T2 - Innovations in Anchor Design—Are Patients Really Benefiting?
AU - Dhawan, Aman
N1 - Funding Information:
The author reports the following potential conflicts of interest or sources of funding: A.D. is a consultant for Smith & Nephew and Avenue Therapeutics; receives grants or has grants pending from Revotek, Department of Defense, and Penn State University/Woodward Foundation; receives payment for lectures including service on speakers’ bureaus from Smith & Nephew; and is Arthroscopy Associate Editor. Full ICMJE author disclosure forms are available for this article online, as supplementary material.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 Arthroscopy Association of North America
PY - 2020/4
Y1 - 2020/4
N2 - Vented open-architecture suture anchors provide theoretical benefits over traditional screw-in solid anchors to include improved osseous ingrowth, elution of marrow elements to enhance biology at the repair site, and easier revision because of reduced anchor material. However, there is no evidence that open-architecture anchors result in improvements in patient-reported outcomes or early cytokine and marrow element release into the subacromial space compared with traditional screw-in solid anchors. Although innovation and evaluation of new technologies are paramount to surgical progress, decisions on implant use should be based on factors including cost, impact on revision, and surgeon familiarity because frequently, clinical differences based on patient-reported outcomes are not appreciated between anchor types or designs.
AB - Vented open-architecture suture anchors provide theoretical benefits over traditional screw-in solid anchors to include improved osseous ingrowth, elution of marrow elements to enhance biology at the repair site, and easier revision because of reduced anchor material. However, there is no evidence that open-architecture anchors result in improvements in patient-reported outcomes or early cytokine and marrow element release into the subacromial space compared with traditional screw-in solid anchors. Although innovation and evaluation of new technologies are paramount to surgical progress, decisions on implant use should be based on factors including cost, impact on revision, and surgeon familiarity because frequently, clinical differences based on patient-reported outcomes are not appreciated between anchor types or designs.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85082589544&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85082589544&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.arthro.2020.01.006
DO - 10.1016/j.arthro.2020.01.006
M3 - Editorial
C2 - 32247427
AN - SCOPUS:85082589544
SN - 0749-8063
VL - 36
SP - 962
EP - 963
JO - Arthroscopy - Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery
JF - Arthroscopy - Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery
IS - 4
ER -