Isolating Suture Slippage During Cadaveric Testing of Knotless Anchors
We evaluated a testing method designed to isolate and analyze the effectiveness of different suture-retention mechanisms in knotless suture anchors used for rotator cuff repairs.
Six knotless PushLock implants (Arthrex) with a suture-retention mechanism dependent on a press-fit of suture between the anchor’s outer diameter and surrounding bone were compared with 6 ReelX STT devices (Stryker) reliant on an intrinsic suture-locking mechanism. Suture slippage beyond minimal clinical failure thresholds, as well as ultimate failure load, were determined with a novel testing fixture that isolated suture slippage.
Suture slippage was isolated from anchor–bone disengagement. Each PushLock exhibited suture slippage of more than 3 mm, and each ReelX exhibited slippage of less than 3 mm. The PushLock implants also exhibited significantly (P < .05) more interval and maximum slippage; 5 of these 6 implants failed via complete suture slippage before dynamic testing could be completed. All ReelX devices survived dynamic testing and ultimately failed via suture breakage.
This novel axial load biomechanical testing technique isolated suture slippage in 2 uniquely designed knotless anchors. The press-fit PushLock implant was prone to slippage failure, whereas the ReelX device with its internal suture-locking mechanism exhibited minimal slippage.
This study’s limitations include use of an in vitro human cadaveric model that precluded analysis of the effects of postoperative healing. Biomechanical testing was also performed in a single row-type suture configuration with the rotator cuff tendon removed. Fixtures used during testing oriented the load coaxially with the axis of tension, creating a worst-case loading scenario. Although this form of testing may limit its clinical applicability, its purpose was to critically isolate how well a knotless anchor could resist suture slippage. The methods we used were also limited because the stability of the bone–anchor interface was not assessed. For patients with osteopenia, anchor pullout rather than suture slippage could be the most limiting factor for knotless anchor construct failure, and therefore further testing of both failure modes is needed. Future biomechanical studies should compare various knotless anchors’ suture-slippage characteristics in other constructs in physiologic testing orientations, including double-row and suture-bridge configurations, as well as with intact rotator cuff tendons. In addition, use of labral tape as a substitute for polyblend suture has been suggested to limit suture slippage, and this technique theoretically could have changed the results of this study.22
Conclusion
An implant with an internal ratcheting mechanism for suture retention demonstrated significantly less suture slippage in an axial tension evaluation protocol than a device reliant on interference fit of the suture between the anchor and surrounding bone. In the clinical setting, this may allow for less gap formation during the healing phase following RCR with a knotless anchor. There was also increased maximum load to failure, demonstrating an increased load until catastrophic failure using a device with a ratcheting internal locking mechanism.
