Purpose
To determine if the depth of anchor insertion affects the biomechanical performance
of a 1.5-mm all-suture anchor in glenoid bone.
Methods
A 1.5-mm all-suture anchor was tested in 8 matched pairs of human cadaver fresh-frozen
glenoids. Anchors were inserted at 6 different locations and tested at 3 different
depths: 21 mm (preset drilling depth), 17 mm, and 13 mm. Cyclic loading and destructive
testing was performed. Displacement after 100 and 200 cycles, along with ultimate
failure strength, was determined.
Results
After 100 and 200 cycles, anchors placed at 13 and 17 mm had undergone significantly
less displacement than those at 21 mm (P < .05). No difference was observed in ultimate load to failure between anchors placed
at 21 and 17 mm. However, the ultimate load to failure was significantly lower in
anchors placed at 13 mm (P < .05). There were 5 clinical failures in anchors placed at 21 mm, one at 17 mm,
and none at 13 mm.
Conclusions
The 1.5-mm all-suture anchor tested in this study has an optimal insertion depth of
17 mm, 4 mm shallower than the preset drill depth. At the optimal insertion depth
of 17 mm, it underwent significantly less displacement after cyclic loading without
a reduction in the ultimate load to failure.
Clinical Relevance
Given the results of this study, the optimal insertion depth for this 1.5-mm all-suture
anchor is 17 mm, 4 mm shallower than the preset drill depth.
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 accessOne-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:
Subscribe to ArthroscopyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- In vitro comparison of standard and Knotless metal suture anchors.Arthroscopy. 2004; 20: 517-520
- Treatment of Bankart lesions in traumatic anterior instability of the shoulder: A randomized controlled trial comparing arthroscopy and open techniques.Arthroscopy. 2012; 28: 900-908
- Arthroscopic Bankart repair using knotless suture anchors.Arthroscopy. 2007; 23 (author reply 567-568): 566-567
- Bioabsorbable anchors in glenohumeral shoulder surgery.Arthroscopy. 2009; 25: 788-793
- Cyclic load testing and ultimate failure strength of biodegradable glenoid anchors.Arthroscopy. 2008; 24: 224-228
- A knotless suture anchor: Technique for use in arthroscopic Bankart repair.Arthroscopy. 2001; 17: 213-218
- Knotless suture anchor: arthroscopic Bankart repair without tying knots.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001; : 42-51
- Biomechanical evaluation of different suture anchors for the stabilization of anterior labrum lesions.Arthroscopy. 2005; 21: 611-619
- Biomechanical evaluation of classic solid and novel all-soft suture anchors for glenoid labral repair.Arthroscopy. 2012; 28: 642-648
- Triple labrum tears repaired with the JuggerKnot soft anchor: Technique and results.Int J Shoulder Surg. 2015; 9: 81-89
- Cyclic loading biomechanical analysis of the pullout strengths of rotator cuff and glenoid anchors: 2013 update.Arthroscopy. 2013; 29: 832-844
- Pullout strength of all suture anchors in the repair of rotator cuff tears: A biomechanical study.Int Orthop. 2013; 37: 2017-2023
- Failure properties of suture anchors in the glenoid and the effects of cortical thickness.Arthroscopy. 1998; 14: 186-191
- Cyclic load testing of biodegradable suture anchors containing 2 high-strength sutures.Arthroscopy. 2007; 23: 355-360
- Cyclic loading of transosseous rotator cuff repairs: Tension overload as a possible cause of failure.Arthroscopy. 1997; 13: 172-176
- Cyclic loading of anchor-based rotator cuff repairs: Confirmation of the tension overload phenomenon and comparison of suture anchor fixation with transosseous fixation.Arthroscopy. 1997; 13: 720-724
- Knot security in simple sliding knots and its relationship to rotator cuff repair: How secure must the knot be?.Arthroscopy. 2000; 16: 202-207
- Maximum load to failure and tensile displacement of an all-suture glenoid anchor compared with a screw-in glenoid anchor.Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016; 24: 357-364
- The histologic and biomechanical response of two commercially available small glenoid anchors for use in labral repairs.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014; 23: 1156-1161
- Biomechanical comparison of all-suture anchor fixation and interference screw technique for subpectoral biceps tenodesis.Arthroscopy. 2016; 32: 1247-1252
- Biomechanical analysis of pullout strengths of rotator cuff and glenoid anchors: 2011 update.Arthroscopy. 2011; 27: 895-905
- A biomechanical analysis of shoulder stabilization: Posteroinferior glenohumeral capsular plication.Am J Sports Med. 2010; 38: 1413-1419
- Strength of single- versus double-anchor repair of type II SLAP lesions: A cadaveric study.Arthroscopy. 2009; 25: 1257-1260
- A biomechanical analysis of capsular plication versus anchor repair of the shoulder: Can the labrum be used as a suture anchor?.Arthroscopy. 2008; 24: 210-216
- Research pearls: The significance of statistics and perils of pooling. Part 1: Clinical versus statistical significance.Arthroscopy. 2017; 33: 1102-1112
Article Info
Publication History
Published online: February 15, 2018
Accepted:
November 8,
2017
Received:
February 27,
2017
Footnotes
See commentary on page 1391
The authors report the following potential conflicts of interest or sources of funding: D.F.D. is a paid consultant for Zimmer Biomet; receives research support from Smith & Nephew and Zimmer Biomet; receives payment for lectures including service on speakers bureaus from Zimmer Biomet; receives royalties from Zimmer Biomet. J.E.F. receives grants from Arthrex, DePuy, and Smith & Nephew. R.D.P. is on the editorial/governing board of the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma by Wolters Kluwers Health–Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Full ICMJE author disclosure forms are available for this article online, as supplementary material.
Identification
Copyright
© 2017 by the Arthroscopy Association of North America
