Why the study?
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a next-generation all-suture anchor compared with an established solid suture anchor in patients undergoing arthroscopic repair of rotator cuff tears.
Does an all-suture anchor improve clinical outcomes compared to a solid suture anchor in patients undergoing arthroscopic repair of rotator cuff tears?
Does an all-suture anchor improve clinical outcomes compared to a solid suture anchor in patients undergoing arthroscopic repair of rotator cuff tears?
An all-suture anchor provides equivalent clinical and functional outcomes to a solid suture anchor at 12 months for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.
This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a next-generation, all-suture anchor in patients undergoing arthroscopic repair of rotator cuff tears, compared with that of an established solid suture anchor. METHODS: Between April 2019 and January 2021, a prospective, comparative, randomized controlled noninferiority study conducted on people with Chinese ethnicity at 3 tertiary hospitals enrolled patients (18-75 years) requiring arthroscopic treatment for rotator cuff tears. Patients were randomized into 2 cohorts receiving either all-suture anchor or solid suture anchor and followed for 12 months. The primary outcome was the Constant-Murley score at the 12-month follow-up. Magnetic resonance imaging assessments determined the rate of retear of rotator cuff repair (defined as Sugaya classification 4 and 5). Safety evaluation was performed at all follow-up points to determine the adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: In total, 120 patients with rotator cuff tears (mean age, 58.3 years; 62.5% female; 60 receiving all-suture anchor) underwent treatment. Five patients were lost to follow-up. Both cohorts showed significant improvement in Constant-Murley scores between baseline and 6 months (P < .001) and between 6 and 12 months (P < .001). There were no significant differences in Constant-Murley scores between the 2 cohorts at 12 months (P = .122) after operation. The retear rate at 12 months was 5.7% and 1.9% in the all-suture and solid suture anchor cohorts, respectively (P = .618). There were 2 cases of intraoperative anchor pullout, both of which were successfully resolved. No cases of postoperative reoperation or other anchor-related AEs were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The all-suture anchor offered equivalent clinical performance to an established solid suture anchor at the 12-month follow-up in patients undergoing arthroscopic repair of rotator cuff tears. The retear rate was not statistically significantly different between the 2 cohorts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, randomized controlled trial.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
All-suture anchors yield equivalent 12-month outcomes to solid anchors; confirms comparable efficacy for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yan et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: