Biocomposite Suture Anchors Remain Visible Two Years After Rotator Cuff Repair.
Journal
Clinical orthopaedics and related research
ISSN: 1528-1132
Titre abrégé: Clin Orthop Relat Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0075674
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2019
06 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
26
3
2019
medline:
17
3
2020
entrez:
26
3
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. (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)? 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). 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. 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 IV, therapeutic study.
Sections du résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30908350
doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000665
pmc: PMC6554104
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biocompatible Materials
0
Calcium Phosphates
0
Polyesters
0
beta-tricalcium phosphate
0
poly(lactide)
459TN2L5F5
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1469-1478Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000 Feb;(371):216-27
pubmed: 10693569
Arthroscopy. 2000 Apr;16(3):305-21
pubmed: 10750011
Arthroscopy. 2003 Mar;19(3):239-48
pubmed: 12627147
Clin J Sport Med. 2003 Mar;13(2):84-92
pubmed: 12629425
Surg Clin North Am. 1963 Dec;43:1523-30
pubmed: 14090198
Am J Sports Med. 2005 May;33(5):742-4
pubmed: 15722290
Arthroscopy. 2005 Nov;21(11):1307-16
pubmed: 16325080
Arthroscopy. 2006 Aug;22(8):820-6
pubmed: 16904577
Arthroscopy. 2007 Mar;23(3):316-20
pubmed: 17349477
Arthroscopy. 2007 Jun;23(6):662-9
pubmed: 17560482
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007 Nov-Dec;16(6):717-21
pubmed: 18061114
PLoS Med. 2008 Jan 3;5(1):e4
pubmed: 18177203
Arthroscopy. 2008 Apr;24(4):441-7
pubmed: 18375277
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2008 May;90(4):326-31
pubmed: 18492399
Arthroscopy. 2009 Jul;25(7):788-93
pubmed: 19560644
Arthroscopy. 2009 Aug;25(8):872-9
pubmed: 19664507
Arthroscopy. 2010 May;26(5):592-9
pubmed: 20434655
Arthroscopy. 2010 Sep;26(9 Suppl):S112-9
pubmed: 20692119
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011 Oct;19(10):1771-9
pubmed: 21311867
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012 Mar;132(3):305-10
pubmed: 21847551
Am J Sports Med. 2012 Jun;40(6):1424-30
pubmed: 21856927
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012 Nov;20(11):2163-73
pubmed: 22045195
Arthroscopy. 2013 Apr;29(4):623-9
pubmed: 23375667
Arthroscopy. 2013 May;29(5):832-44
pubmed: 23561482
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013 Jul;21(7):1647-54
pubmed: 23604175
Arthroscopy. 2013 Sep;29(9):1589-95
pubmed: 23876609
Arthroscopy. 2013 Nov;29(11):1834-9
pubmed: 24209681
Arthroscopy. 2014 Feb;30(2):165-71
pubmed: 24360347
Am J Sports Med. 2014 Mar;42(3):552-7
pubmed: 24431337
JRSM Open. 2015 Jan 19;6(1):2054270414562986
pubmed: 25852953
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015 Aug 12;16:189
pubmed: 26265152
Am J Sports Med. 2015 Dec;43(12):2907-12
pubmed: 26482545
Orthop J Sports Med. 2016 May 31;4(5):2325967116647724
pubmed: 27294168
Arthroscopy. 2017 Mar;33(3):683-689
pubmed: 27998641
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017 Nov;137(11):1539-1546
pubmed: 28780703
Clin Orthop Surg. 2017 Sep;9(3):270-279
pubmed: 28861193
J Chronic Dis. 1985;38(1):27-36
pubmed: 3972947