Suture locking of isolated internal locking knotless suture anchors is not affected by bone quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the mechanical performance of different suture locking mechanisms including: i) interference fit between the anchor and the bone (eg, 4.5 mm PushLock, 5.5 mm SwiveLock), ii) internal locking mechanism within the anchor itself (eg, 5.5 mm SpeedScrew), or iii) a combination of interference fit and internal locking (eg, 4.5 mm MultiFIX P, 5.5 mm MultiFIX S). METHODS: Anchors were tested in foam blocks representing normal (20/8 foam) or osteopenic (8/8 foam) bone, using standard suture loops pulled in-line with the anchor to isolate suture locking. Mechanical testing included cyclic testing for 500 cycles from 10 N to 60 N at 60 mm/min, followed by failure testing at 60 mm/min. Displacement after 500 cycles at 60 N, number of cycles at 3 mm displacement, load at 3 mm displacement, and maximum load were evaluated. RESULTS: Comparing 8/8 foam to 20/8 foam, load at 3 mm displacement and maximum load were significantly decreased (P<0.05) with decreased bone quality for anchors that, even in part, relied on an interference fit suture locking mechanism (ie, 4.5 mm PushLock, 5.5 mm SwiveLock, 4.5 mm MultiFIX P, 5.5 mm MultiFIX S). Bone quality did not affect the mechanical performance of 5.5 mm SpeedScrew anchors which have an isolated internal locking mechanism. CONCLUSION: The mechanical performance of anchors that relied, even in part, on interference fit were affected by bone quality. Isolated internal locking knotless suture anchors functioned independently of bone quality. Anchors with a combined type (interference fit and internal locking) suture locking mechanism demonstrated similar mechanical performance to isolated internal locking anchors in osteopenic foam comparing similar sized anchors. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In osteopenic bone, knotless suture anchors that have an internal locking mechanism (isolated or combined type) may be advantageous for secure tendon fixation to bone.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".