Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery
Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 11/2017

01-11-2017 | Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine

Radiolucent rings around bioabsorbable anchors after rotator cuff repair are not associated with clinical outcomes

Authors: Jin-Young Park, Suk-Hwan Jang, Kyung-Soo Oh, Yi Jin Li

Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery | Issue 11/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Various researchers have observed small areas of osteolysis after using bioabsorbable anchors in shoulder surgeries. The purpose of this study is to determine whether radiographic perianchor radiolucent rings after rotator cuff repair are associated with the failure of repair and also assess their clinical implications. Further, the most frequent location of the radiolucent rings in the double-row suture bridge configuration was also assessed.

Methods

One hundred and twenty-nine consecutive patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair by suture bridge technique were retrospectively evaluated radiographically and clinically. The number and size of the rings that appeared at each follow-up were recorded. Also, the locations of each ring were recorded as anterior, middle or posterior, and medial or lateral according to the construct of the anchors used for suture bridge technique. The size of the tear, the number of anchors used and age of the patients were compared. Re-tear rates according to ultrasound examinations were also analyzed.

Results

After rotator cuff repair, the mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score increased from 46.7 to 88.0 and the overall re-tear rate was 8.5% (11 cases). Seventy-three patients (56.6%) showed RR (total number of 99 rings) at least once during the course of their follow-up and the rings appeared at a mean period of 18.2 months after surgery. Mean size of the rings initially was 5.6 mm and the rings increased or decreased in mean size of 0.4 mm during mean follow-up of 37 months. No correlation was seen with the number of RRs and the rate of re-tears, number of anchors, size of tears, and clinical outcome as determined by the ASES score. Radiolucent ring measurement reproducibility was confirmed by independent, repeated measurements. The rings appeared mostly at anteromedial anchors (75 rings, 75.8%) and the authors suggest that mechanical factors may play a role for the cause of radiolucent rings.

Conclusions

The number and the size of RRs around bioabsorbable anchors after rotator cuff repair do not appear to adversely affect the healing and clinical outcome of ARCR. Most radiolucent rings appeared at anteromedial anchors, indicating that mechanical factors may play a role for the radiolucencies.

Level of evidence

Case series, level IV.
Literature
1.
Athwal GS, Shridharani SM, O’Driscoll SW (2006) Osteolysis and arthropathy of the shoulder after use of bioabsorbable knotless suture anchors. A report of four cases. J Bone Jt Surg Am 88(8):1840–1845CrossRef
2.
Bishop J, Klepps S, Lo IK, Bird J, Gladstone JN, Flatow EL (2006) Cuff integrity after arthroscopic versus open rotator cuff repair: a prospective study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 15(3):290–299CrossRefPubMed
3.
Bostman OM, Pihlajamaki HK (2000) Adverse tissue reactions to bioabsorbable fixation devices. Clin Orthop Relat Res 371:216–227CrossRef
4.
Burkart A, Imhoff AB, Roscher E (2000) Foreign-body reaction to the bioabsorbable suretac device. Arthroscopy 16(1):91–95CrossRefPubMed
5.
Burkhart SS (2005) Letter to the editor. Am J Sports Med 33:11
6.
Burkhart SS, Denard PJ, Konicek J, Hanypsiak BT (2014) Biomechanical validation of load-sharing rip-stop fixation for the repair of tissue-deficient rotator cuff tears. Am J Sports Med 42(2):457–462CrossRefPubMed
7.
Costello MF, Shrestha SM, Sjoblom P et al (2006) Power doppler ultrasound assessment of the relationship between age and ovarian perifollicular blood flow in women undergoing in vitro fertilization treatment. J Assist Reprod Genet 23(9–10):359–365CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Dhawan A, Ghodadra N, Karas V, Salata MJ, Cole BJ (2011) Complications of bioabsorbable suture anchors in the shoulder. Am J Sports Med 40(6):1424–1430CrossRefPubMed
9.
Ejerhed L, Kartus J, Funck E, Kohler K, Sernert N, Karlsson J (2000) A clinical and radiographic comparison of absorbable and non-absorbable suture anchors in open shoulder stabilisation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 8(6):349–355CrossRefPubMed
10.
Freehill MQ, Harms DJ, Huber SM, Atlihan D, Buss DD (2003) Poly-l-lactic acid tack synovitis after arthroscopic stabilization of the shoulder. Am J Sports Med 31(5):643–647CrossRefPubMed
11.
Fuchs B, Gilbart MK, Hodler J, Gerber C (2006) Clinical and structural results of open repair of an isolated one-tendon tear of the rotator cuff. J Bone Jt Surg Am 88(2):309–316
12.
Galatz LM, Ball CM, Teefey SA, Middleton WD, Yamaguchi K (2004) The outcome and repair integrity of completely arthroscopically repaired large and massive rotator cuff tears. J Bone Jt Surg Am 86-A(2):219–224CrossRef
13.
Glueck D, Wilson TC, Johnson DL (2005) Extensive osteolysis after rotator cuff repair with a bioabsorbable suture anchor: a case report. Am J Sports Med 33(5):742–744CrossRefPubMed
14.
Goradia VK, Mullen DJ, Boucher HR, Parks BG, O’Donnell JB (2001) Cyclic loading of rotator cuff repairs: a comparison of bioabsorbable tacks with metal suture anchors and transosseous sutures. Arthroscopy 17(4):360–364CrossRefPubMed
15.
Gunja NJ, Athanasiou KA (2006) Biodegradable materials in arthroscopy. Sports Med Arthrosc 14(3):112–119CrossRefPubMed
16.
Howe C, Huber P, Wolf FM, Matsen F 3rd (2009) Differential suture loading in an experimental rotator cuff repair. Am J Sports Med 37(2):324–329CrossRefPubMed
17.
Jost B, Zumstein M, Pfirrmann CW, Gerber C (2006) Long-term outcome after structural failure of rotator cuff repairs. J Bone Jt Surg Am 88(3):472–479
18.
Kaplan K, Elattrache NS, Vazquez O, Chen YJ, Lee T (2011) Knotless rotator cuff repair in an external rotation model: the importance of medial-row horizontal mattress sutures. Arthroscopy 27(4):471–478CrossRefPubMed
19.
Kartus J, Ejerhed L, Funck E, Kohler K, Sernert N, Karlsson J (1998) Arthroscopic and open shoulder stabilization using absorbable implants. A clinical and radiographic comparison of two methods. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 6(3):181–188CrossRefPubMed
20.
McFarland EG, Park HB, Keyurapan E, Gill HS, Selhi HS (2005) Suture anchors and tacks for shoulder surgery, part 1: biology and biomechanics. Am J Sports Med 33(12):1918–1923CrossRefPubMed
21.
McNally EG (2011) The development and clinical applications of musculoskeletal ultrasound. Skelet Radiol 40(9):1223–1231CrossRef
22.
Muller M, Kaab MJ, Villiger C, Holzach P (2002) Osteolysis after open shoulder stabilization using a new bio-resorbable bone anchor: a prospective, non-randomized clinical trial. Injury 33(Suppl 2):B30–B36CrossRefPubMed
23.
Nho SJ, Provencher MT, Seroyer ST, Romeo AA (2009) Bioabsorbable anchors in glenohumeral shoulder surgery. Arthroscopy 25(7):788–793CrossRefPubMed
24.
Nusselt T, Freche S, Klinger HM, Baums MH (2010) Intraosseous foreign body granuloma in rotator cuff repair with bioabsorbable suture anchor. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 130(8):1037–1040CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Pilge H, Spang J, Rose T, Wolter H, Woertler K, Imhoff AB (2011) Osteolysis after rotator cuff repair with bioabsorbable anchors. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132(3):305–310CrossRefPubMed
26.
Spoliti M (2007) Glenoid osteolysis after arthroscopic labrum repair with a bioabsorbable suture anchor. Acta Orthop Belg 73(1):107–110PubMed
27.
Tanaka M, Hayashida K, Kobayashi A, Kakiuchi M (2015) Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with absorbable sutures in the medial-row anchors. Arthroscopy 31(11):2099–2105CrossRefPubMed
28.
Thorsness R, Romeo A (2016) Massive rotator cuff tears: trends in surgical management. Orthopedics 39(3):145–151CrossRefPubMed
29.
Warme WJ, Arciero RA, Savoie FH 3rd, Uhorchak JM, Walton M (1999) Nonabsorbable versus absorbable suture anchors for open Bankart repair. A prospective, randomized comparison. Am J Sports Med 27(6):742–746CrossRefPubMed
30.
Yen CH, Chiou HJ, Chou YH et al (2004) Six surgery-correlated sonographic signs for rotator cuff tears: emphasis on partial-thickness tear. Clin Imaging 28(1):69–76CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Radiolucent rings around bioabsorbable anchors after rotator cuff repair are not associated with clinical outcomes
Authors
Jin-Young Park
Suk-Hwan Jang
Kyung-Soo Oh
Yi Jin Li
Publication date
01-11-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery / Issue 11/2017
Print ISSN: 0936-8051
Electronic ISSN: 1434-3916
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2772-1

Other articles of this Issue 11/2017

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 11/2017 Go to the issue

Abstracts

Abstracts

Orthopaedic Surgery

Lumbar subtotal corpectomy non-fusion model produced using a novel prosthesis

Trauma Surgery

Prevalence of posttraumatic arthritis and the association with outcome measures following distal radius fractures in non-osteoporotic patients: a systematic review

Trauma Surgery

Focal osteonecrosis in the femoral head following stable anatomic fixation of displaced femoral neck fractures

Orthopaedic Surgery

Skeletal muscle metastasis from the most common carcinomas orthopedic surgeons deal with. A systematic review of the literature

Knee Arthroplasty

Kinematics of mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compared to native: results from an in vitro study