title: Cyclic loading biomechanical analysis of the pullout strengths of rotator cuff and glenoid anchors: 2013 update.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The purpose of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical and design characteristics of newer suture anchors under cyclic loading.
  
  
  METHODS
  Suture anchors were tested in fresh porcine cortical and cancellous bone by cyclic loading (10 to 100 N for 200 cycles) followed by destructive testing parallel to the insertion axis at 12.5 mm per second. End points included ultimate failure load, displacement at 100 and 200 cycles, failure mode, and stiffness. Anchors tested included ReelX (Stryker Endoscopy, San Jose, CA); Footprint Ultra PK (4.5 and 5.5 mm) (Smith & Nephew, Andover, MA); TwinFix (4.5, 5.5, and 6.5 mm made from polyether ether ketone [PEEK], hydroxyapatite [HA], and titanium [Ti]) (Smith & Nephew Endoscopy, Andover, MA); Morphix (2.5 and 5.5 mm) (MedShape Solutions, Atlanta, GA); CrossFT BC (ConMed-Linvatec, Largo, FL); JuggerKnot (1.5 and 2.8 mm) (Biomet Sports Medicine, Warsaw, IN); Healicoil (Smith & Nephew Endoscopy, Andover, MA); Quattro (X, Link, and GL) (Cayenne Medical, Scottsdale, AZ); Healix (Biocryl Rapide [BR], PEEK, and Ti) (DePuy Mitek, Raynham, MA); Twin Loop (3.5 mm, PEEK) (Stryker Endoscopy, San Jose, CA); PressFT (2.1 and 2.6 mm) (ConMed Linvatec, Largo FL); Y-Knot (ConMed Linvatec, Largo FL); Gryphon (BR and PEEK) (DePuy Mitek, Raynham, MA); and Iconix (1, 2, and 3) (Stryker Endoscopy, San Jose, CA).
  
  
  RESULTS
  Rotator cuff anchors showed greater failure loads than did glenoid anchors in metaphyseal bone (rotator cuff anchors 448 N v glenoid anchors 296 N) (P = .001) and cancellous bone (rotator cuff anchors 435 N v glenoid anchors 225 N) (P < .001). No anchors reached 5 mm of displacement during cyclic loading. TwinFix anchors showed greater displacement at 100 (P = .014) and 200 cycles (P = .036) than did other rotator cuff anchors, although the ReelX and Morphix showed the greatest displacements. Rotator cuff anchors failed principally by eyelet breaking, whereas glenoid anchors failed more often by anchor pullout than by any other mode. No differences in stiffness were observed across the different rotator cuff and glenoid anchors tested.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Rotator cuff anchors showed higher failure strengths than did glenoid anchors, regardless of bone type. TwinFix anchors showed more cyclic displacement than did other rotator cuff anchors (except the ReelX and Morphix anchors) and the glenoid anchors tested. The failure mode was dependent on the specific anchor.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Suture anchor constructs tested showed that failure load is dependent on anchor type (rotator cuff anchor or glenoid anchor) but not on anchor location (cancellous or cortical bone).
authors.affiliation: Plano Orthopedic Sports Medicine and Spine Center, Plano, Texas 75093, USA.
authors.forename: F Alan
authors.initials: FA
authors.lastname: Barber
authors.forename: Morley A
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Herbert
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena; D005269:Femur / Q000601:surgery; D008422:Materials Testing; D023421:Models, Animal; D017006:Rotator Cuff / Q000601:surgery*; D012540:Scapula / Q000601:surgery*; D053441:Suture Anchors; D013552:Swine; D013718:Tensile Strength