The effect of suture anchor design and orientation on suture abrasion: An in vitro study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of suture anchor design and orientation on suture abrasion in a cyclic model. TYPE OF STUDY: In vitro. METHODS: Biomechanical studies have shown suture breakage to be a predominant mode of failure in a suture anchor repair construct. It is possible that suture abrasion during knot tying or in vivo cyclic loading may contribute to early failure. This study specifically investigates suture abrasion caused by 17 commonly used suture anchors and demonstrates the effects of suture anchor angulation and rotation on suture abrasion. To eliminate target tissue as a source of failure, all anchors were implanted into a solid block of sawbones material and tested with No. 2 Ethibond Excel sutures (Ethicon, Somerville, NJ). The testing model focused on 3 variables: suture anchor type, suture pull angle (SA) and angle of anchor rotation (RA). Abrasion testing was then performed on a servohydraulic materials testing system by continually cycling the suture back and forth through each anchor with an excursion of 4 cm at a rate of 0.5 Hz under a load of 10 N until suture failure occurred. RESULTS: Sutures performed significantly better when cycled in line with the anchor at 0 degrees SA with 0 degrees RA than they did at 45 degrees SA with 0 degrees RA or 45 degrees SA with 90 degrees RA. We found no significant difference between anchors tested at 45 degrees SA with 0 degrees RA and 45 degrees SA with 90 degrees RA. For tests performed using metallic suture anchors, all constructs failed by fraying of the suture. Constructs using biopolymer anchors and nonabsorbable polymeric anchors experienced a mixture of suture and anchor eyelet failures. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to the statistically significant detrimental effects of suture anchor angulation and rotation on suture abrasion, suture anchor eyelet design may also influence suture abrasion. Surgeons should be aware of the effects of anchor angulation, suture position in the eyelet, and design and composition of the eyelet to maximize the durability of the construct.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".