What Makes Suture Anchor Use Safe in Hip Arthroscopy? A Systematic Review of Techniques and Safety Profile
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose To perform a systematic review that assesses the current literature on suture anchor placement for the purpose of identifying factors that lead to suture anchor perforation and techniques that reduce the likelihood of complications. It was hypothesized that suture anchor placement in hip arthroscopy would generally be safe, with the exception of the complications of articular cartilage violation and psoas tunnel perforation. Perioperative factors, related to patient, surgeon, and technical variables, may influence the safety of suture anchor insertion. Methods Three databases (PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Embase) were searched, and 2 reviewers independently screened the resulting literature. The inclusion criteria were clinical and biomechanical studies examining the use of suture anchors in hip arthroscopy. The methodologic quality of all included articles was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria and the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool. Results are presented according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using descriptive statistics. Results We included 14 studies in this review, comprising 4 case series (491 patients; 56.6% female patients; mean age, 33.9 years), 9 controlled cadaveric or laboratory studies (111 cadaveric hips and 12 synthetic acetabular bone blocks; 42.2% female hips; mean age, 60.0 years) with a mean Quality Appraisal for Cadaveric Studies score of 11, and 1 randomized controlled trial (37 hips; 55.6% female hips; mean age, 34.2 years). Anterior cortical perforation into the psoas tunnel by suture anchors led to pain and impingement of pelvic neurovascular structures. The anterior acetabular positions (3- to 4-o’clock position) had the thinnest bone, smallest rim angles, and highest incidence of articular perforation. Drilling angles from 10° to 20° measured off the coronal plane were acceptable. The midanterior and distal anterolateral portals were used successfully, with 1 study reporting difficulty placing anchors at anterior locations through the distal anterolateral portal. One study showed that curved suture anchor drill guides allow for a better trajectory away from the articular cartilage. Small-diameter (≤1.8-mm) all-suture anchors had a lower in vivo incidence of articular perforation with similar stability and pullout strength to other anchor types in biomechanical studies. Conclusions Suture anchors at anterior acetabular rim positions (3- to 4-o’clock position) should be inserted with caution. Large-diameter (≥2.3-mm) suture anchors increase the likelihood of articular perforation without increasing labral stability. Inserting small-diameter (≤1.8-mm) all-suture anchors from 10° to 20° drilling angles may increase safe insertion angles from all cutaneous portals. Direct arthroscopic visualization, the use of fluoroscopy, distal-proximal insertion, and the use of nitinol wire can help prevent articular violation. Level of Evidence Level IV, systematic review of Level I to IV studies. To perform a systematic review that assesses the current literature on suture anchor placement for the purpose of identifying factors that lead to suture anchor perforation and techniques that reduce the likelihood of complications. It was hypothesized that suture anchor placement in hip arthroscopy would generally be safe, with the exception of the complications of articular cartilage violation and psoas tunnel perforation. Perioperative factors, related to patient, surgeon, and technical variables, may influence the safety of suture anchor insertion. Three databases (PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Embase) were searched, and 2 reviewers independently screened the resulting literature. The inclusion criteria were clinical and biomechanical studies examining the use of suture anchors in hip arthroscopy. The methodologic quality of all included articles was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria and the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool. Results are presented according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using descriptive statistics. We included 14 studies in this review, comprising 4 case series (491 patients; 56.6% female patients; mean age, 33.9 years), 9 controlled cadaveric or laboratory studies (111 cadaveric hips and 12 synthetic acetabular bone blocks; 42.2% female hips; mean age, 60.0 years) with a mean Quality Appraisal for Cadaveric Studies score of 11, and 1 randomized controlled trial (37 hips; 55.6% female hips; mean age, 34.2 years). Anterior cortical perforation into the psoas tunnel by suture anchors led to pain and impingement of pelvic neurovascular structures. The anterior acetabular positions (3- to 4-o’clock position) had the thinnest bone, smallest rim angles, and highest incidence of articular perforation. Drilling angles from 10° to 20° measured off the coronal plane were acceptable. The midanterior and distal anterolateral portals were used successfully, with 1 study reporting difficulty placing anchors at anterior locations through the distal anterolateral portal. One study showed that curved suture anchor drill guides allow for a better trajectory away from the articular cartilage. Small-diameter (≤1.8-mm) all-suture anchors had a lower in vivo incidence of articular perforation with similar stability and pullout strength to other anchor types in biomechanical studies. Suture anchors at anterior acetabular rim positions (3- to 4-o’clock position) should be inserted with caution. Large-diameter (≥2.3-mm) suture anchors increase the likelihood of articular perforation without increasing labral stability. Inserting small-diameter (≤1.8-mm) all-suture anchors from 10° to 20° drilling angles may increase safe insertion angles from all cutaneous portals. Direct arthroscopic visualization, the use of fluoroscopy, distal-proximal insertion, and the use of nitinol wire can help prevent articular violation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».