Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Suture anchor fixation strength in osteopenic versus non-osteopenic bone for rotator cuff repair

  • Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Rotator cuff tears are increasing with age. Does osteopenic bone have an influence on the pullout strength of suture anchors?

Materials and methods

SPIRALOK 5.0 mm (DePuy Mitek), Super Revo 5 mm and UltraSorb (both ConMed Linvatec) suture anchors were tested in six osteopenic and six healthy human cadaveric humeri. Incremental cyclic loading was performed. The ultimate failure load, anchor displacement, and the mode of failure were recorded.

Results

In the non-osteopenic bone group, the absorbable SPIRALOK 5.0 mm achieved a significantly better pullout strength (274 N ± 29 N, mean ± SD) than the titanium anchor Super Revo 5 mm (188 N ± 34 N, mean ± SD), and the tilting anchor UltraSorb (192 N ± 34 N, mean ± SD). In the osteopenic bone group no significant difference in the pullout strength was found. The failure mechanisms, such as anchor pullout, rupture at eyelet, suture breakage and breakage of eyelet, varied between the anchors.

Conclusion

The present study demonstrates that, in osteopenic bone, absorbable suture anchors do not have lower pullout strengths than metal anchors. In normal bone, the bioabsorbable anchor in this study even outperformed the non-absorbable anchor.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barber FA, Feder SM, Burkhart SS, Ahrens J (1997) The relationship of suture anchor failure and bone density to proximal humerus location: a cadaveric study. Arthroscopy 13(3):340–345

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bardana DD, Burks RT, West JR, Greis PE (2003) The effect of suture anchor design and orientation on suture abrasion: an in vitro study. Arthroscopy 19(3):274–281

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bostman OM (1991) Osteolytic changes accompanying degradation of absorbable fracture fixation implants. J Bone Joint Surg Br 73(4):679–682

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Burkart A, Imhoff AB, Roscher E (2000) Foreign-body reaction to the bioabsorbable suretac device. Arthroscopy 16(1):91–95

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Burkhart SS (1995) The deadman theory of suture anchors: observations along a south Texas fence line. Arthroscopy 11(1):119–123

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Burkhart SS, Diaz Pagan JL, Wirth MA, Athanasiou KA (1997) Cyclic loading of anchor-based rotator cuff repairs: confirmation of the tension overload phenomenon and comparison of suture anchor fixation with transosseous fixation. Arthroscopy 13(6):720–724

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. De Carli A, Vadala A, Monaco E, Labianca L, Zanzotto E, Ferretti A (2005) Effect of cyclic loading on new polyblend suture coupled with different anchors. Am J Sports Med 33(2):214–219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dejong ES, DeBerardino TM, Brooks DE, Judson K (2004) In vivo comparison of a metal versus a biodegradable suture anchor. Arthroscopy 20(5):511–516

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gerber C, Schneeberger AG, Beck M, Schlegel U (1994) Mechanical strength of repairs of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Br 76(3):371–380

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hollinger JO, Battistone GC (1986) Biodegradable bone repair materials. Synthetic polymers and ceramics. Clin Orthop Relat Res (207): 290–305

  11. Kaar TK, Schenck RC Jr, Wirth MA, Rockwood CA Jr (2001) Complications of metallic suture anchors in shoulder surgery: a report of 8 cases. Arthroscopy 17(1):31–37

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Leedle BP, Miller MD (2005) Pullout strength of knotless suture anchors. Arthroscopy 21(1):81–85

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mahar A, Allred DW, Wedemeyer M, Abbi G, Pedowitz R (2006) A biomechanical and radiographic analysis of standard and intracortical suture anchors for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Arthroscopy 22(2):130–135

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. McFarland EG, Park HB, Keyurapan E, Gill HS, Selhi HS (2005) Suture anchors and tacks for shoulder surgery, part 1: biology and biomechanics. Am J Sports Med 33(12):1918–1923

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Meier SW, Meier JD (2006) The effect of double-row fixation on initial repair strength in rotator cuff repair: a biomechanical study. Arthroscopy 22(11):1168–1173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rickert M, Witzel U, Kolbel R, Georgousis H (2002) Primary strength of conventional and alternative suture techniques of the rotator cuff. A biomechanical study. Unfallchirurg 105(1):23–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Rupp S, Georg T, Gauss C, Kohn D, Seil R (2002) Fatigue testing of suture anchors. Am J Sports Med 30(2):239–247

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Schneeberger AG, von Roll A, Kalberer F, Jacob HA, Gerber C (2002) Mechanical strength of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair techniques: an in vitro study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A(12):2152–2160

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sher JS, Uribe JW, Posada A, Murphy BJ, Zlatkin MB (1995) Abnormal findings on magnetic resonance images of asymptomatic shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg Am 77(1):10–15

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Tingart MJ, Apreleva M, Lehtinen J, Zurakowski D, Warner JJ (2004) Anchor design and bone mineral density affect the pull-out strength of suture anchors in rotator cuff repair: which anchors are best to use in patients with low bone quality? Am J Sports Med 32(6):1466–1473

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tingart MJ, Apreleva M, Zurakowski D, Warner JJ (2003) Pullout strength of suture anchors used in rotator cuff repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A(11):2190–2198

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedics, Klinikum Grosshadern, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany

    Matthias F. Pietschmann, Valerie Fröhlich, Andreas Ficklscherer, Mehmet F. Gülecyüz, Bernd Wegener, Volkmar Jansson & Peter E. Müller

Authors
  1. Matthias F. Pietschmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Valerie Fröhlich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andreas Ficklscherer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mehmet F. Gülecyüz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bernd Wegener
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Volkmar Jansson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Peter E. Müller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter E. Müller.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pietschmann, M.F., Fröhlich, V., Ficklscherer, A. et al. Suture anchor fixation strength in osteopenic versus non-osteopenic bone for rotator cuff repair. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 129, 373–379 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-008-0689-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-008-0689-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation