title: Evaluation of BioCorkscrew and Bioknotless RC suture anchor rotator cuff repair fixation: an in vitro biomechanical study.
abstract: This in vitro biomechanical study used cadaveric specimens to compare the rotator cuff repair fixation provided by BioCorkscrew and Bioknotless RC suture anchors. Three cm wide by 1-cm long full-thickness supraspinatus defects were repaired using either two BioCorkscrew suture anchors with combined vertical and horizontal mattress sutures (n = 7) or three Bioknotless RC suture anchors with simple sutures (n = 7). Therefore, the BioCorkscrew suture anchor group had two sutures per anchor (four total sutures), while the Bioknotless RC suture anchor group had one suture per anchor (three total sutures). Two-phase cyclic (5-100 N, 1,000 cycles and 5-180 N, 2,000 cycles) and load to failure tests (31 mm/s) were performed. Non-parametric statistics were used to compare group differences (P < 0.05). All of the BioCorkscrew group specimens (seven of seven) completed the two phase cyclic test regimen without failure or gapping >/= 5 mm, compared to only three of seven of the Bioknotless RC group (Fisher's Exact test = 0.03). Groups did not differ for repair site gapping during the 5-100 N cyclic test phase (Fisher's Exact test = 0.77), however more of the Bioknotless RC group displayed gapping >/= 5 mm during the 5-180 N cyclic test phase than the BioCorkscrew group (P = 0.02). The BioCorkscrew group also displayed greater yield load during load to failure testing (492.2 +/- 204 N vs. 296.4 +/- 155 N, P = 0.03). In this in vitro biomechanical study, the BioCorkscrew group with combined vertical and horizontal mattress sutures displayed greater cyclic test survival, less repair site gapping, and superior yield load compared to the Bioknotless RC group with simple sutures. These results in human cadaveric rotator cuff-humerus specimens suggest better immediate post-operative repair site strength and a reduced need for post-operative restrictions. Clinical studies are needed to determine how these rotator cuff repair modes withstand the forces of early rehabilitation and activities of daily living that potentially influence patient outcomes.
authors: Division of Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Louisville, Suite 1003, Louisville, KY 40202, USA.
authors: Jennifer Tucker
authors: JT
authors: Ammon
authors: John
authors: J
authors: Nyland
authors: Haw Chong
authors: HC
authors: Chang
authors: Robert
authors: R
authors: Burden
authors: David N M
authors: DN
authors: Caborn
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D002102:Cadaver; D004867:Equipment Design; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D006811:Humerus / Q000601:surgery; D066298:In Vitro Techniques; D008297:Male; D008422:Materials Testing; D008875:Middle Aged; D018583:Pliability; D017006:Rotator Cuff / Q000601:surgery*; D000070636:Rotator Cuff Injuries; D053441:Suture Anchors; D013536:Suture Techniques / Q000295:instrumentation*; D013708:Tendon Injuries / Q000601:surgery*; D013718:Tensile Strength