Biocomposite Suture Anchors Remain Visible Two Years After Rotator Cuff Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Biocomposite suture anchors containing osteoconductive materials have gained popularity in rotator cuff repairs. However, little is known about the influence of the addition of osteoconductive materials on implant resorption, bone reaction, tendon healing, and clinical outcomes scores. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What percentage of suture anchors were not completely resorbed 2 years after implantation? (2) What are the diameters of the bone bed in relation to the implant? (3) Is tendon integrity correlated with bone tunnel diameter? (4) Is there an association between tunnel widening, periimplant fluid film grade, biodegradation grade, and retear with clinical outcomes scores, such as the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) and the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS)? METHODS: Thirty-six patients were enrolled from August 2012 to January 2014. The following inclusion criteria were applied: (1) reparable full-thickness supraspinatus tendon tears, (2) double-row suture bridge techniques applied for supraspinatus repair, (3) use of biocomposites suture anchor implants composed of poly L-lactic acid (PLLA) and β-tricalcium phosphate (TCP) exclusively, and (4) a minimum of 2 years followup. Four patients met the exclusion criteria, and seven of 36 patients (19%) were lost to followup. Thereby, 25 patients (84 implants) were included in this retrospective study. To answer the study's questions, the following methods were applied: (1) The resorption of the implants and periimplant fluid film were assessed on MRI using a four-stage scale system, (2) bone bed diameter was measured on MRI at three different points on the longitudinal central axis of each anchor, (3) tendon integrity was evaluated on MRI according to the Sugaya classification and correlated to bone tunnel diameter, and (4) assessed tunnel diameters, periimplant fluid film grade, biodegradation grade, and tendon condition were related to clinical outcomes scores at the time of followup (2.3 ± 0.3 years). The intraobserver reliability was 0.981 (p < 0.001) and interobserver reliability was 0.895 (p < 0.001). RESULTS: At 2.3 ± 0.3 years, most analyzed suture anchors (76 of 84 [90%]) were, with varying degrees of degradation, still visible. Bone tunnels showed minor widening (0.4 ± 1.4 mm) at the base, but osseous ingrowth was detected as narrowing at the middle (0.1 ± 1.1 mm) and at the apex (1.4 ± 1.7 mm) of the implants. Patients with retears (Sugaya Grades 4-5) had narrower tunnels (3.6 ± 1.8 mm) than patients without retears (Sugaya Grades 1-3; 4.4 ± 1.6 mm; mean difference, 0.782 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.009-1.6]; p = 0.050). WORC and Oxford scores were not associated with the tunnel widening amount, fluid film grade, biodegradation grade, or tendon retear. CONCLUSIONS: In light of the results of the present study, surgeons should consider in their daily practice that the resorption process of these implants may be slower than assumed so far, but no association with severe implant-related complications has been found in the short term. Future studies should focus on the evaluation of the effects of osteoconductive materials on resorption, tendon healing, and clinical outcomes in the long term and on the integration process in different rotator cuff reconstruction techniques. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".