Original article| Volume 21, ISSUE 12, P1447-1451, December 2005

Suture Strength and Angle of Load Application in a Suture Anchor Eyelet

      Purpose: To assess the effect of suture material, anchor orientation, and anchor eyelet design on the static loading properties of suture anchors. Type of Study: Biomechanical bench study. Methods: Two metallic suture anchors, Mitek GII (Mitek, Westwood, MA) and Corkscrew (Arthrex, Naples, FL) and a bioabsorbable anchor (Biocorkscrew; Arthrex) were tested with single strand of No. 2 Ethibond (Ethicon, Norderstedt, Germany) or No. 2 FiberWire (Arthrex) suture. Suture pull angle was varied through 0°, 45°, and 90° with the anchor rotation angle in either a sagittal or coronal plane. Constructs were tested to failure using an MTS 858 Bionix testing machine (Material Testing Systems, Eden Prairie, MN). Peak loads, stiffness, energy to peak load, and failure modes were determined for all samples. Results: FiberWire showed superior static mechanical properties when compared with single-strand Ethibond over all testing conditions (P < .05). Suture pull angle had a significant effect on load to failure with both metallic anchors but not on the bioabsorbable anchor (P < .05). Conclusions: Suture pull angle and anchor rotation angle play an important role in the failure load of suture when placed in an eyelet. The polyaxial nature of the Biocorkscrew eyelet allows for increased degrees of freedom but introduces failure of the suture eyelet as a new failure mode. Clinical Relevance: The loading direction and placement of the suture anchor plays a role in the performance of the suture anchor–suture complex.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Arthroscopy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Barber F.A.
        • Herbert M.A.
        Suture anchors—Update 1999.
        Arthroscopy. 1999; 15: 719-725
        • Meyer D.C.
        • Nyffeler R.W.
        • Fucentese S.F.
        • Gerber C.
        Failure of suture material at suture anchor eyelets.
        Arthroscopy. 2002; 18: 1013-1019
        • Rossouw D.J.
        • McElroy B.J.
        • Amis A.A.
        • Emery R.J.
        A biomechanical evaluation of suture anchors in repair of the rotator cuff.
        J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997; 79: 458-461
        • Gerber C.
        • Schneeberger A.G.
        • Perren S.M.
        • Nyffeler R.W.
        Experimental rotator cuff repair. A preliminary study.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999; 81: 1281-1290
        • Schneeberger A.G.
        • von Roll A.
        • Kalberer F.
        • Jacob H.A.
        • Gerber C.
        Mechanical strength of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair techniques.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002; 84: 2152-2160
        • Reed S.C.
        • Glossop N.
        • Ogilvie-Harris D.J.
        Full-thickness rotator cuff tears. A biomechanical comparison of suture versus bone anchor techniques.
        Am J Sports Med. 1996; 24: 46-48
        • Meyer D.C.
        • Fucentese S.F.
        • Ruffieux K.
        • Jacob H.A.
        • Gerber C.
        Mechanical testing of absorbable suture anchors.
        Arthroscopy. 2003; 19: 188-193
        • Burkhart S.S.
        The deadman theory of suture anchors.
        Arthroscopy. 1995; 11: 119-123
        • Bardana D.D.
        • Burks R.T.
        • West J.R.
        • Greis P.E.
        The effect of suture anchor design and orientation on suture abrasion.
        Arthroscopy. 2003; 19: 274-281
        • Muller M.
        • Kaab M.J.
        • Villiger C.
        • Holzach P.
        Osteolysis after open shoulder stabilization using a new bio-resorbable bone anchor.
        Injury. 2002; 33: B30-B36