Comparison of Completely Knotless and Hybrid Double‐Row Fixation Systems: A Biomechanical Study

Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical performance of a completely knotless double‐row repair system (SutureCross Knotless Anatomic Fixation System; KFx Medical, Carlsbad, CA) with 2 commonly used hybrid double‐row repair (medial knot‐tying, lateral knotless) systems (Bio‐Corkscrew/PushLock Arthrex, Naples, FL and Spiralok/Versalok DePuy Mitek, Raynham, MA). Methods Fourteen pairs of fresh‐frozen cadaveric shoulders were harvested, the supraspinatus tendons were isolated, and full‐thickness supraspinatus tears were created. One of each pair was repaired with the completely knotless system, and the contralateral side was repaired with either of the hybrid systems. The repairs were then subjected to cyclic loading followed by load to failure. Conditioning elongation, peak‐to‐peak elongation, ultimate load, and mechanism of failure were recorded and compared by use of paired t tests. Seven additional shoulders were tested to determine the effect of refrigeration storage on the completely knotless system by use of the same mechanical testing protocol. Results For the completely knotless repair group, 11 of 14 paired specimens failed during the cyclic loading period. Only 1 of 14 hybrid repair systems had failures during cyclic loading, and both hybrid repair systems had statistically lower conditioning elongation than the completely knotless repair group. The mean ultimate load of the SutureCross group was 166 ± 87 N, which was significantly lower than that in the Corkscrew/PushLock (310 ± 82 N) and Spiralok/Versalok (337 ± 44 N) groups. There was an effect of refrigeration storage on the peak‐to‐peak elongation and stiffness of the SutureCross group; however, there was no difference in ultimate tensile load or conditioning elongation. Conclusions The completely knotless repair system has lower time‐zero biomechanical properties than the other 2 hybrid systems. Clinical Relevance The SutureCross system has lower time‐zero biomechanical properties when compared with other hybrid repair systems. Clinical outcome studies are needed to determine the significance.