Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose To compare procedure time between knotless and knotted all‐suture anchors during arthroscopic acetabular labral repair in a cadaveric model and to evaluate implications for surgical training and workflow efficiency. Methods Ten fresh‐frozen cadaveric hemipelvis specimens underwent arthroscopic labral repair. Five specimens (20 anchors) were repaired using knotted all‐suture anchors, and 5 specimens (20 anchors) were repaired using tensionable knotless all‐suture anchors. A standardized simple‐loop suture configuration was used in all repairs. Repair time per anchor was recorded and subdivided into “Pass,” “Tie/Convert,” and “Cut” phases. Comparisons between groups were performed using independent t tests or Mann‐Whitney U tests, with α = 0.05. Results Mean total repair time per anchor was significantly shorter in the knotless group (79.36 ± 18.07 seconds) compared with the knotted group (142.48 ± 27.96 seconds; P = .007). Tie/Convert phase was also significantly shorter in the knotless group (15.92 ± 4.50 seconds vs 73.11 ± 18.44 seconds; P < .001). Pass phase was slightly longer with knotless anchors (52.94 ± 24.92 seconds vs 43.41 ± 23.83 seconds; P = .050). Cut phase was shorter with knotless anchors (11.35 ± 4.93 seconds vs 25.70 ± 27.06 seconds; P = .191) although not statistically significant. Conclusions Knotless suture anchors significantly reduced acetabular labral repair time compared with knotted anchors in this cadaveric model, primarily because of a shorter Tie/Convert phase required for suture fixation. Clinical Relevance Knotless suture anchors may streamline labral repair by eliminating arthroscopic knot tying. Their technical simplicity and efficiency may benefit surgical training and enhance consistency among less experienced surgeons.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kahana-Rojkind et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: