Three anchor concepts for rotator cuff repair in standardized physiological and osteoporotic bone: a biomechanical study.

BACKGROUND

Previous biomechanical studies used single-pull destructive tests in line with the anchor and are limited by a great variability of bone density of cadaver samples. To overcome these limitations, a more physiological test setting was provided using titanium, bioresorbable, and all-suture anchors.

METHODS

In this controlled laboratory study, 3 anchor constructs were divided into 2 groups: physiological and osteoporotic. Sixty standardized artificial bone specimens (=10 for each anchor in each group) were used for biomechanical testing. The anchors were inserted at a 45° angle as during surgery. Cyclic loading for 1000 cycles followed by ultimate load-to-failure (ULTF) testing was performed. Elongation, ultimate load at failure, and the mode of failure were noted.

RESULTS

In the physiological group, the ULTF for the all-suture anchor (mean [standard deviation], 632.9 [96.8 N]) was found to be significantly higher than for the other anchors (titanium, 497.1 [50.5] N, and bioresorbable, 322.4 [3.1 N], P < .0001). The titanium anchor showed a significantly higher ULTF than the bioresorbable anchor (P < .0001). In the osteoporotic group, the all-suture anchor again showed a higher ULTF compared to the bioresorbable anchor (500.9 [50.6] N vs. 315.1 [11.3] N, P < .0001). In the osteoporotic group, cyclic loading revealed a higher elongation after 1000 loading cycles for the bioresorbable (0.40 [0.12] mm) compared to the titanium (0.22 [0.11] mm; P = .01) as well as the all-suture anchor (0.19 [0.15] mm, P = .003).

CONCLUSION

Regarding ULTF, the all-suture anchor outperformed the other anchors in physiological bone, but in osteoporotic bone, significance was reached only compared to the bioresorbable anchor. Although cyclic loading revealed significant differences, these might not be clinically relevant.