Yang Yi-Shiuan, Shih Chien-An, Fang Ching-Ju, Huang Tzu-Teng, Hsu Kai-Lan, Kuan Fa-Chuan, Su Wei-Ren, Hong Chih-Kai
Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.
J Exp Orthop. 2023 Apr 17;10(1):45. doi: 10.1186/s40634-023-00608-w.
Suture anchors are commonly used to repair rotator cuff tendons in arthroscopy surgery, and several anchor materials have been created to maximize pull-out strength and minimize iatrogenic damage. We hypothesized that all-suture anchors have biomechanical properties equivalent to those of conventional anchors. Our purpose is to compare the biomechanical properties of different anchors used for rotator cuff repair.
The Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus databases were searched for biomechanical studies on various suture anchors. The search keywords included rotator cuff tears and suture anchors, and two authors conducted study a selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. The failure load, stiffness, and displacement were calculated using the mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Failure modes were estimated using summary odds ratios with 95% CIs. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve was used for the relative ranking probabilities. A sensitivity analysis was performed by excluding studies using synthetic bones.
The polyetheretherketone (PEEK) (p < 0.001) and all-suture anchors (p < 0.001) had higher failure loads than the biocomposite anchors, whereas no significant difference was observed in stiffness among the anchors. The all-suture (p = 0.006) and biocomposite anchors (p < 0.001) had displacements higher than the metal anchors. The relative ranking of the included anchors in failure loads and displacement changed in sensitivity analysis. The meta-analysis did not find significant differences, but the relative ranking probabilities suggested that all-suture anchor had a higher rate of anchor pull-out and a lower rate of eyelet or suture breakage. In contrast, the metal anchors were associated with a higher number of eyelet breakage episodes.
All-suture anchors showed significantly higher failure loads than the biocomposite anchors and similar cyclic displacements to the biocomposite and PEEK anchors. There were no significant differences in stiffness between all-suture and conventional suture anchors. The relative ranking of biomechanical properties changed in sensitivity analysis, suggesting the potential effect of bone marrow density.
Level IV.
缝线锚钉常用于关节镜手术中修复肩袖肌腱,已研发出多种锚钉材料以最大化拔出强度并最小化医源性损伤。我们假设全缝线锚钉具有与传统锚钉相当的生物力学性能。我们的目的是比较用于肩袖修复的不同锚钉的生物力学性能。
检索Embase、PubMed、Cochrane和Scopus数据库中关于各种缝线锚钉的生物力学研究。检索关键词包括肩袖撕裂和缝线锚钉,由两位作者进行研究筛选、偏倚风险评估和数据提取。使用具有95%置信区间(CI)的平均差异计算失效载荷、刚度和位移。使用具有95%CI的汇总比值比估计失效模式。累积排名曲线下的面积用于相对排名概率。通过排除使用合成骨的研究进行敏感性分析。
聚醚醚酮(PEEK)(p < 0.001)和全缝线锚钉(p < 0.001)的失效载荷高于生物复合锚钉,而各锚钉之间的刚度无显著差异。全缝线锚钉(p = 0.006)和生物复合锚钉(p < 0.001)的位移高于金属锚钉。在敏感性分析中,纳入锚钉在失效载荷和位移方面的相对排名发生了变化。荟萃分析未发现显著差异,但相对排名概率表明全缝线锚钉的锚钉拔出率较高,孔眼或缝线断裂率较低。相比之下,金属锚钉的孔眼断裂事件较多。
全缝线锚钉的失效载荷显著高于生物复合锚钉,且与生物复合锚钉和PEEK锚钉的循环位移相似。全缝线锚钉与传统缝线锚钉在刚度方面无显著差异。生物力学性能的相对排名在敏感性分析中发生了变化,提示骨髓密度的潜在影响。
四级。