The Incidence of Early Metallic Suture Anchor Pullout After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify the incidence of metallic suture anchor pullout after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair and determine the impact of tear size on the risk of pullout. METHODS: A retrospective review of 269 patients (550 metallic suture anchors) who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair between January 2006 and January 2009 was conducted. Inclusion criteria included patients aged 18 years or older, a minimum of 6 weeks' radiographic follow-up, and the use of 1 or more metallic suture anchors for partial or complete rotator cuff repair. The mean age of the cohort at the time of surgery was 55 years (range, 29 to 86 years), and there were 189 men and 80 women. RESULTS: Early anchor pullout occurred in 6 patients (9 anchors). The overall incidence of early metallic suture anchor pullout in this cohort was 2.4% (95% confidence interval, 0.5% to 4.3%). The incidence in rotator cuff tears less than or equal to 3 cm was 0.5%, and the incidence in tears greater than 3 cm was 11%. Patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair of a tear greater than 3 cm in size were at a significantly higher risk of having early metallic suture anchor pullout than patients undergoing repair of a smaller tear (relative risk, 22; P = .001). Among the 61 patients undergoing arthroscopic subscapularis repair, no suture anchor failures were observed at the lesser tuberosity. Of the 9 anchors that failed, 8 (89%) pulled out of the posterior aspect of the greater tuberosity. CONCLUSIONS: There is a minimal risk of suture anchor pullout in small- to medium-sized tears; however, this risk increases with larger tear sizes. We recommend routine radiographic follow-up after use of metallic anchors to ensure identification of early failure by anchor pullout. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prognostic case series.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".