Biomechanical comparison of different suture anchors used in rotator cuff repair surgery–all-suture anchors are equivalent to other suture anchors: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Purpose Suture anchors are commonly used to repair rotator cuff tendons in arthroscopy surgery, and several anchor materials have been created to maximize pull-out strength and minimize iatrogenic damage. We hypothesized that all-suture anchors have biomechanical properties equivalent to those of co...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Yang, Yi-Shiuan [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2023 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Anmerkung: |
© The Author(s) 2023 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics - Berlin : SpringerOpen, 2014, 10(2023), 1 vom: 17. Apr. |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:10 ; year:2023 ; number:1 ; day:17 ; month:04 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1186/s40634-023-00608-w |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
SPR050072943 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | SPR050072943 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230418064747.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 230418s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1186/s40634-023-00608-w |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)SPR050072943 | ||
| 035 | |a (SPR)s40634-023-00608-w-e | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Yang, Yi-Shiuan |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Biomechanical comparison of different suture anchors used in rotator cuff repair surgery–all-suture anchors are equivalent to other suture anchors: a systematic review and network meta-analysis |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2023 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © The Author(s) 2023 | ||
| 520 | |a Purpose Suture anchors are commonly used to repair rotator cuff tendons in arthroscopy surgery, and several anchor materials have been created to maximize pull-out strength and minimize iatrogenic damage. We hypothesized that all-suture anchors have biomechanical properties equivalent to those of conventional anchors. Our purpose is to compare the biomechanical properties of different anchors used for rotator cuff repair. Methods The Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus databases were searched for biomechanical studies on various suture anchors. The search keywords included rotator cuff tears and suture anchors, and two authors conducted study a selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. The failure load, stiffness, and displacement were calculated using the mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Failure modes were estimated using summary odds ratios with 95% CIs. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve was used for the relative ranking probabilities. A sensitivity analysis was performed by excluding studies using synthetic bones. Results The polyetheretherketone (PEEK) (p < 0.001) and all-suture anchors (p < 0.001) had higher failure loads than the biocomposite anchors, whereas no significant difference was observed in stiffness among the anchors. The all-suture (p = 0.006) and biocomposite anchors (p < 0.001) had displacements higher than the metal anchors. The relative ranking of the included anchors in failure loads and displacement changed in sensitivity analysis. The meta-analysis did not find significant differences, but the relative ranking probabilities suggested that all-suture anchor had a higher rate of anchor pull-out and a lower rate of eyelet or suture breakage. In contrast, the metal anchors were associated with a higher number of eyelet breakage episodes. Conclusions All-suture anchors showed significantly higher failure loads than the biocomposite anchors and similar cyclic displacements to the biocomposite and PEEK anchors. There were no significant differences in stiffness between all-suture and conventional suture anchors. The relative ranking of biomechanical properties changed in sensitivity analysis, suggesting the potential effect of bone marrow density. Level of Evidence Level IV. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Rotator cuff injuries |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Rotator cuff repair |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Suture anchors |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a All-suture anchors |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Biocomposite anchors |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a PEEK anchor |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Metal anchors |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Shih, Chien-An |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Fang, Ching-Ju |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Huang, Tzu-Teng |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hsu, Kai-Lan |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Kuan, Fa-Chuan |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Su, Wei-Ren |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hong, Chih-Kai |0 (orcid)0000-0003-3231-1789 |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics |d Berlin : SpringerOpen, 2014 |g 10(2023), 1 vom: 17. Apr. |w (DE-627)792130855 |w (DE-600)2780021-0 |x 2197-1153 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:10 |g year:2023 |g number:1 |g day:17 |g month:04 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40634-023-00608-w |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_SPRINGER | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_31 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_39 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_74 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_105 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_161 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_170 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_171 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_206 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_213 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_224 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_230 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_285 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_293 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_636 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2004 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2005 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2006 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2007 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2010 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2011 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2026 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2027 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2034 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2037 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2038 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2044 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2048 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2049 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2050 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2055 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2056 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2057 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2059 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2061 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2064 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2068 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2088 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2106 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2108 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2110 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2111 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2118 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2122 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2143 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2144 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2147 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2148 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2152 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2153 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2232 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2336 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2470 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2507 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2522 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4035 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4046 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4126 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4242 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4249 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4251 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4307 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4313 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4326 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4333 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4334 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4335 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4336 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4338 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4367 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4700 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 10 |j 2023 |e 1 |b 17 |c 04 | ||
| author_variant |
y s y ysy c a s cas c j f cjf t t h tth k l h klh f c k fck w r s wrs c k h ckh |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:21971153:2023----::imcaiacmaioodfeetuuenhrueirttrufearugraluuenhraeqiaetotestrac |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2023 |
| publishDate |
2023 |
| allfields |
10.1186/s40634-023-00608-w doi (DE-627)SPR050072943 (SPR)s40634-023-00608-w-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Yang, Yi-Shiuan verfasserin aut Biomechanical comparison of different suture anchors used in rotator cuff repair surgery–all-suture anchors are equivalent to other suture anchors: a systematic review and network meta-analysis 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2023 Purpose Suture anchors are commonly used to repair rotator cuff tendons in arthroscopy surgery, and several anchor materials have been created to maximize pull-out strength and minimize iatrogenic damage. We hypothesized that all-suture anchors have biomechanical properties equivalent to those of conventional anchors. Our purpose is to compare the biomechanical properties of different anchors used for rotator cuff repair. Methods The Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus databases were searched for biomechanical studies on various suture anchors. The search keywords included rotator cuff tears and suture anchors, and two authors conducted study a selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. The failure load, stiffness, and displacement were calculated using the mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Failure modes were estimated using summary odds ratios with 95% CIs. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve was used for the relative ranking probabilities. A sensitivity analysis was performed by excluding studies using synthetic bones. Results The polyetheretherketone (PEEK) (p < 0.001) and all-suture anchors (p < 0.001) had higher failure loads than the biocomposite anchors, whereas no significant difference was observed in stiffness among the anchors. The all-suture (p = 0.006) and biocomposite anchors (p < 0.001) had displacements higher than the metal anchors. The relative ranking of the included anchors in failure loads and displacement changed in sensitivity analysis. The meta-analysis did not find significant differences, but the relative ranking probabilities suggested that all-suture anchor had a higher rate of anchor pull-out and a lower rate of eyelet or suture breakage. In contrast, the metal anchors were associated with a higher number of eyelet breakage episodes. Conclusions All-suture anchors showed significantly higher failure loads than the biocomposite anchors and similar cyclic displacements to the biocomposite and PEEK anchors. There were no significant differences in stiffness between all-suture and conventional suture anchors. The relative ranking of biomechanical properties changed in sensitivity analysis, suggesting the potential effect of bone marrow density. Level of Evidence Level IV. Rotator cuff injuries (dpeaa)DE-He213 Rotator cuff repair (dpeaa)DE-He213 Suture anchors (dpeaa)DE-He213 All-suture anchors (dpeaa)DE-He213 Biocomposite anchors (dpeaa)DE-He213 PEEK anchor (dpeaa)DE-He213 Metal anchors (dpeaa)DE-He213 Shih, Chien-An aut Fang, Ching-Ju aut Huang, Tzu-Teng aut Hsu, Kai-Lan aut Kuan, Fa-Chuan aut Su, Wei-Ren aut Hong, Chih-Kai (orcid)0000-0003-3231-1789 aut Enthalten in Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics Berlin : SpringerOpen, 2014 10(2023), 1 vom: 17. Apr. (DE-627)792130855 (DE-600)2780021-0 2197-1153 nnns volume:10 year:2023 number:1 day:17 month:04 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40634-023-00608-w kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_636 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2144 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4336 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 10 2023 1 17 04 |
| spelling |
10.1186/s40634-023-00608-w doi (DE-627)SPR050072943 (SPR)s40634-023-00608-w-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Yang, Yi-Shiuan verfasserin aut Biomechanical comparison of different suture anchors used in rotator cuff repair surgery–all-suture anchors are equivalent to other suture anchors: a systematic review and network meta-analysis 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2023 Purpose Suture anchors are commonly used to repair rotator cuff tendons in arthroscopy surgery, and several anchor materials have been created to maximize pull-out strength and minimize iatrogenic damage. We hypothesized that all-suture anchors have biomechanical properties equivalent to those of conventional anchors. Our purpose is to compare the biomechanical properties of different anchors used for rotator cuff repair. Methods The Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus databases were searched for biomechanical studies on various suture anchors. The search keywords included rotator cuff tears and suture anchors, and two authors conducted study a selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. The failure load, stiffness, and displacement were calculated using the mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Failure modes were estimated using summary odds ratios with 95% CIs. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve was used for the relative ranking probabilities. A sensitivity analysis was performed by excluding studies using synthetic bones. Results The polyetheretherketone (PEEK) (p < 0.001) and all-suture anchors (p < 0.001) had higher failure loads than the biocomposite anchors, whereas no significant difference was observed in stiffness among the anchors. The all-suture (p = 0.006) and biocomposite anchors (p < 0.001) had displacements higher than the metal anchors. The relative ranking of the included anchors in failure loads and displacement changed in sensitivity analysis. The meta-analysis did not find significant differences, but the relative ranking probabilities suggested that all-suture anchor had a higher rate of anchor pull-out and a lower rate of eyelet or suture breakage. In contrast, the metal anchors were associated with a higher number of eyelet breakage episodes. Conclusions All-suture anchors showed significantly higher failure loads than the biocomposite anchors and similar cyclic displacements to the biocomposite and PEEK anchors. There were no significant differences in stiffness between all-suture and conventional suture anchors. The relative ranking of biomechanical properties changed in sensitivity analysis, suggesting the potential effect of bone marrow density. Level of Evidence Level IV. Rotator cuff injuries (dpeaa)DE-He213 Rotator cuff repair (dpeaa)DE-He213 Suture anchors (dpeaa)DE-He213 All-suture anchors (dpeaa)DE-He213 Biocomposite anchors (dpeaa)DE-He213 PEEK anchor (dpeaa)DE-He213 Metal anchors (dpeaa)DE-He213 Shih, Chien-An aut Fang, Ching-Ju aut Huang, Tzu-Teng aut Hsu, Kai-Lan aut Kuan, Fa-Chuan aut Su, Wei-Ren aut Hong, Chih-Kai (orcid)0000-0003-3231-1789 aut Enthalten in Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics Berlin : SpringerOpen, 2014 10(2023), 1 vom: 17. Apr. (DE-627)792130855 (DE-600)2780021-0 2197-1153 nnns volume:10 year:2023 number:1 day:17 month:04 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40634-023-00608-w kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_636 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2144 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4336 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 10 2023 1 17 04 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1186/s40634-023-00608-w doi (DE-627)SPR050072943 (SPR)s40634-023-00608-w-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Yang, Yi-Shiuan verfasserin aut Biomechanical comparison of different suture anchors used in rotator cuff repair surgery–all-suture anchors are equivalent to other suture anchors: a systematic review and network meta-analysis 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2023 Purpose Suture anchors are commonly used to repair rotator cuff tendons in arthroscopy surgery, and several anchor materials have been created to maximize pull-out strength and minimize iatrogenic damage. We hypothesized that all-suture anchors have biomechanical properties equivalent to those of conventional anchors. Our purpose is to compare the biomechanical properties of different anchors used for rotator cuff repair. Methods The Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus databases were searched for biomechanical studies on various suture anchors. The search keywords included rotator cuff tears and suture anchors, and two authors conducted study a selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. The failure load, stiffness, and displacement were calculated using the mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Failure modes were estimated using summary odds ratios with 95% CIs. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve was used for the relative ranking probabilities. A sensitivity analysis was performed by excluding studies using synthetic bones. Results The polyetheretherketone (PEEK) (p < 0.001) and all-suture anchors (p < 0.001) had higher failure loads than the biocomposite anchors, whereas no significant difference was observed in stiffness among the anchors. The all-suture (p = 0.006) and biocomposite anchors (p < 0.001) had displacements higher than the metal anchors. The relative ranking of the included anchors in failure loads and displacement changed in sensitivity analysis. The meta-analysis did not find significant differences, but the relative ranking probabilities suggested that all-suture anchor had a higher rate of anchor pull-out and a lower rate of eyelet or suture breakage. In contrast, the metal anchors were associated with a higher number of eyelet breakage episodes. Conclusions All-suture anchors showed significantly higher failure loads than the biocomposite anchors and similar cyclic displacements to the biocomposite and PEEK anchors. There were no significant differences in stiffness between all-suture and conventional suture anchors. The relative ranking of biomechanical properties changed in sensitivity analysis, suggesting the potential effect of bone marrow density. Level of Evidence Level IV. Rotator cuff injuries (dpeaa)DE-He213 Rotator cuff repair (dpeaa)DE-He213 Suture anchors (dpeaa)DE-He213 All-suture anchors (dpeaa)DE-He213 Biocomposite anchors (dpeaa)DE-He213 PEEK anchor (dpeaa)DE-He213 Metal anchors (dpeaa)DE-He213 Shih, Chien-An aut Fang, Ching-Ju aut Huang, Tzu-Teng aut Hsu, Kai-Lan aut Kuan, Fa-Chuan aut Su, Wei-Ren aut Hong, Chih-Kai (orcid)0000-0003-3231-1789 aut Enthalten in Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics Berlin : SpringerOpen, 2014 10(2023), 1 vom: 17. Apr. (DE-627)792130855 (DE-600)2780021-0 2197-1153 nnns volume:10 year:2023 number:1 day:17 month:04 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40634-023-00608-w kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_636 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2144 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4336 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 10 2023 1 17 04 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1186/s40634-023-00608-w doi (DE-627)SPR050072943 (SPR)s40634-023-00608-w-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Yang, Yi-Shiuan verfasserin aut Biomechanical comparison of different suture anchors used in rotator cuff repair surgery–all-suture anchors are equivalent to other suture anchors: a systematic review and network meta-analysis 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2023 Purpose Suture anchors are commonly used to repair rotator cuff tendons in arthroscopy surgery, and several anchor materials have been created to maximize pull-out strength and minimize iatrogenic damage. We hypothesized that all-suture anchors have biomechanical properties equivalent to those of conventional anchors. Our purpose is to compare the biomechanical properties of different anchors used for rotator cuff repair. Methods The Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus databases were searched for biomechanical studies on various suture anchors. The search keywords included rotator cuff tears and suture anchors, and two authors conducted study a selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. The failure load, stiffness, and displacement were calculated using the mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Failure modes were estimated using summary odds ratios with 95% CIs. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve was used for the relative ranking probabilities. A sensitivity analysis was performed by excluding studies using synthetic bones. Results The polyetheretherketone (PEEK) (p < 0.001) and all-suture anchors (p < 0.001) had higher failure loads than the biocomposite anchors, whereas no significant difference was observed in stiffness among the anchors. The all-suture (p = 0.006) and biocomposite anchors (p < 0.001) had displacements higher than the metal anchors. The relative ranking of the included anchors in failure loads and displacement changed in sensitivity analysis. The meta-analysis did not find significant differences, but the relative ranking probabilities suggested that all-suture anchor had a higher rate of anchor pull-out and a lower rate of eyelet or suture breakage. In contrast, the metal anchors were associated with a higher number of eyelet breakage episodes. Conclusions All-suture anchors showed significantly higher failure loads than the biocomposite anchors and similar cyclic displacements to the biocomposite and PEEK anchors. There were no significant differences in stiffness between all-suture and conventional suture anchors. The relative ranking of biomechanical properties changed in sensitivity analysis, suggesting the potential effect of bone marrow density. Level of Evidence Level IV. Rotator cuff injuries (dpeaa)DE-He213 Rotator cuff repair (dpeaa)DE-He213 Suture anchors (dpeaa)DE-He213 All-suture anchors (dpeaa)DE-He213 Biocomposite anchors (dpeaa)DE-He213 PEEK anchor (dpeaa)DE-He213 Metal anchors (dpeaa)DE-He213 Shih, Chien-An aut Fang, Ching-Ju aut Huang, Tzu-Teng aut Hsu, Kai-Lan aut Kuan, Fa-Chuan aut Su, Wei-Ren aut Hong, Chih-Kai (orcid)0000-0003-3231-1789 aut Enthalten in Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics Berlin : SpringerOpen, 2014 10(2023), 1 vom: 17. Apr. (DE-627)792130855 (DE-600)2780021-0 2197-1153 nnns volume:10 year:2023 number:1 day:17 month:04 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40634-023-00608-w kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_636 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2144 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4336 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 10 2023 1 17 04 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1186/s40634-023-00608-w doi (DE-627)SPR050072943 (SPR)s40634-023-00608-w-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Yang, Yi-Shiuan verfasserin aut Biomechanical comparison of different suture anchors used in rotator cuff repair surgery–all-suture anchors are equivalent to other suture anchors: a systematic review and network meta-analysis 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2023 Purpose Suture anchors are commonly used to repair rotator cuff tendons in arthroscopy surgery, and several anchor materials have been created to maximize pull-out strength and minimize iatrogenic damage. We hypothesized that all-suture anchors have biomechanical properties equivalent to those of conventional anchors. Our purpose is to compare the biomechanical properties of different anchors used for rotator cuff repair. Methods The Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus databases were searched for biomechanical studies on various suture anchors. The search keywords included rotator cuff tears and suture anchors, and two authors conducted study a selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. The failure load, stiffness, and displacement were calculated using the mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Failure modes were estimated using summary odds ratios with 95% CIs. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve was used for the relative ranking probabilities. A sensitivity analysis was performed by excluding studies using synthetic bones. Results The polyetheretherketone (PEEK) (p < 0.001) and all-suture anchors (p < 0.001) had higher failure loads than the biocomposite anchors, whereas no significant difference was observed in stiffness among the anchors. The all-suture (p = 0.006) and biocomposite anchors (p < 0.001) had displacements higher than the metal anchors. The relative ranking of the included anchors in failure loads and displacement changed in sensitivity analysis. The meta-analysis did not find significant differences, but the relative ranking probabilities suggested that all-suture anchor had a higher rate of anchor pull-out and a lower rate of eyelet or suture breakage. In contrast, the metal anchors were associated with a higher number of eyelet breakage episodes. Conclusions All-suture anchors showed significantly higher failure loads than the biocomposite anchors and similar cyclic displacements to the biocomposite and PEEK anchors. There were no significant differences in stiffness between all-suture and conventional suture anchors. The relative ranking of biomechanical properties changed in sensitivity analysis, suggesting the potential effect of bone marrow density. Level of Evidence Level IV. Rotator cuff injuries (dpeaa)DE-He213 Rotator cuff repair (dpeaa)DE-He213 Suture anchors (dpeaa)DE-He213 All-suture anchors (dpeaa)DE-He213 Biocomposite anchors (dpeaa)DE-He213 PEEK anchor (dpeaa)DE-He213 Metal anchors (dpeaa)DE-He213 Shih, Chien-An aut Fang, Ching-Ju aut Huang, Tzu-Teng aut Hsu, Kai-Lan aut Kuan, Fa-Chuan aut Su, Wei-Ren aut Hong, Chih-Kai (orcid)0000-0003-3231-1789 aut Enthalten in Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics Berlin : SpringerOpen, 2014 10(2023), 1 vom: 17. Apr. (DE-627)792130855 (DE-600)2780021-0 2197-1153 nnns volume:10 year:2023 number:1 day:17 month:04 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40634-023-00608-w kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_636 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2144 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4336 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 10 2023 1 17 04 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics 10(2023), 1 vom: 17. Apr. volume:10 year:2023 number:1 day:17 month:04 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics 10(2023), 1 vom: 17. Apr. volume:10 year:2023 number:1 day:17 month:04 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Rotator cuff injuries Rotator cuff repair Suture anchors All-suture anchors Biocomposite anchors PEEK anchor Metal anchors |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
| container_title |
Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Yang, Yi-Shiuan @@aut@@ Shih, Chien-An @@aut@@ Fang, Ching-Ju @@aut@@ Huang, Tzu-Teng @@aut@@ Hsu, Kai-Lan @@aut@@ Kuan, Fa-Chuan @@aut@@ Su, Wei-Ren @@aut@@ Hong, Chih-Kai @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2023-04-17T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
792130855 |
| id |
SPR050072943 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR050072943</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230418064747.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230418s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s40634-023-00608-w</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR050072943</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s40634-023-00608-w-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yang, Yi-Shiuan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Biomechanical comparison of different suture anchors used in rotator cuff repair surgery–all-suture anchors are equivalent to other suture anchors: a systematic review and network meta-analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Purpose Suture anchors are commonly used to repair rotator cuff tendons in arthroscopy surgery, and several anchor materials have been created to maximize pull-out strength and minimize iatrogenic damage. We hypothesized that all-suture anchors have biomechanical properties equivalent to those of conventional anchors. Our purpose is to compare the biomechanical properties of different anchors used for rotator cuff repair. Methods The Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus databases were searched for biomechanical studies on various suture anchors. The search keywords included rotator cuff tears and suture anchors, and two authors conducted study a selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. The failure load, stiffness, and displacement were calculated using the mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Failure modes were estimated using summary odds ratios with 95% CIs. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve was used for the relative ranking probabilities. A sensitivity analysis was performed by excluding studies using synthetic bones. Results The polyetheretherketone (PEEK) (p < 0.001) and all-suture anchors (p < 0.001) had higher failure loads than the biocomposite anchors, whereas no significant difference was observed in stiffness among the anchors. The all-suture (p = 0.006) and biocomposite anchors (p < 0.001) had displacements higher than the metal anchors. The relative ranking of the included anchors in failure loads and displacement changed in sensitivity analysis. The meta-analysis did not find significant differences, but the relative ranking probabilities suggested that all-suture anchor had a higher rate of anchor pull-out and a lower rate of eyelet or suture breakage. In contrast, the metal anchors were associated with a higher number of eyelet breakage episodes. Conclusions All-suture anchors showed significantly higher failure loads than the biocomposite anchors and similar cyclic displacements to the biocomposite and PEEK anchors. There were no significant differences in stiffness between all-suture and conventional suture anchors. The relative ranking of biomechanical properties changed in sensitivity analysis, suggesting the potential effect of bone marrow density. Level of Evidence Level IV.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Rotator cuff injuries</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Rotator cuff repair</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Suture anchors</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">All-suture anchors</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Biocomposite anchors</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">PEEK anchor</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Metal anchors</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Shih, Chien-An</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fang, Ching-Ju</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Huang, Tzu-Teng</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hsu, Kai-Lan</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kuan, Fa-Chuan</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Su, Wei-Ren</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hong, Chih-Kai</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0003-3231-1789</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics</subfield><subfield code="d">Berlin : SpringerOpen, 2014</subfield><subfield code="g">10(2023), 1 vom: 17. Apr.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)792130855</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2780021-0</subfield><subfield code="x">2197-1153</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:10</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2023</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:17</subfield><subfield code="g">month:04</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40634-023-00608-w</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_171</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_636</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2004</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2026</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2034</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2049</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2059</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2064</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2068</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2088</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2106</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2108</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2118</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2122</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2143</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2144</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2147</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2148</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2153</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2232</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2336</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2470</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2507</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2522</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4035</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4046</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4242</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4251</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4326</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4333</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4334</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4336</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">10</subfield><subfield code="j">2023</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">17</subfield><subfield code="c">04</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Yang, Yi-Shiuan |
| spellingShingle |
Yang, Yi-Shiuan misc Rotator cuff injuries misc Rotator cuff repair misc Suture anchors misc All-suture anchors misc Biocomposite anchors misc PEEK anchor misc Metal anchors Biomechanical comparison of different suture anchors used in rotator cuff repair surgery–all-suture anchors are equivalent to other suture anchors: a systematic review and network meta-analysis |
| authorStr |
Yang, Yi-Shiuan |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)792130855 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut |
| collection |
springer |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
2197-1153 |
| topic_title |
Biomechanical comparison of different suture anchors used in rotator cuff repair surgery–all-suture anchors are equivalent to other suture anchors: a systematic review and network meta-analysis Rotator cuff injuries (dpeaa)DE-He213 Rotator cuff repair (dpeaa)DE-He213 Suture anchors (dpeaa)DE-He213 All-suture anchors (dpeaa)DE-He213 Biocomposite anchors (dpeaa)DE-He213 PEEK anchor (dpeaa)DE-He213 Metal anchors (dpeaa)DE-He213 |
| topic |
misc Rotator cuff injuries misc Rotator cuff repair misc Suture anchors misc All-suture anchors misc Biocomposite anchors misc PEEK anchor misc Metal anchors |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc Rotator cuff injuries misc Rotator cuff repair misc Suture anchors misc All-suture anchors misc Biocomposite anchors misc PEEK anchor misc Metal anchors |
| topic_browse |
misc Rotator cuff injuries misc Rotator cuff repair misc Suture anchors misc All-suture anchors misc Biocomposite anchors misc PEEK anchor misc Metal anchors |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
792130855 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)792130855 (DE-600)2780021-0 |
| title |
Biomechanical comparison of different suture anchors used in rotator cuff repair surgery–all-suture anchors are equivalent to other suture anchors: a systematic review and network meta-analysis |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)SPR050072943 (SPR)s40634-023-00608-w-e |
| title_full |
Biomechanical comparison of different suture anchors used in rotator cuff repair surgery–all-suture anchors are equivalent to other suture anchors: a systematic review and network meta-analysis |
| author_sort |
Yang, Yi-Shiuan |
| journal |
Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics |
| journalStr |
Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
true |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2023 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| author_browse |
Yang, Yi-Shiuan Shih, Chien-An Fang, Ching-Ju Huang, Tzu-Teng Hsu, Kai-Lan Kuan, Fa-Chuan Su, Wei-Ren Hong, Chih-Kai |
| container_volume |
10 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Yang, Yi-Shiuan |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1186/s40634-023-00608-w |
| normlink |
(ORCID)0000-0003-3231-1789 |
| normlink_prefix_str_mv |
(orcid)0000-0003-3231-1789 |
| title_sort |
biomechanical comparison of different suture anchors used in rotator cuff repair surgery–all-suture anchors are equivalent to other suture anchors: a systematic review and network meta-analysis |
| title_auth |
Biomechanical comparison of different suture anchors used in rotator cuff repair surgery–all-suture anchors are equivalent to other suture anchors: a systematic review and network meta-analysis |
| abstract |
Purpose Suture anchors are commonly used to repair rotator cuff tendons in arthroscopy surgery, and several anchor materials have been created to maximize pull-out strength and minimize iatrogenic damage. We hypothesized that all-suture anchors have biomechanical properties equivalent to those of conventional anchors. Our purpose is to compare the biomechanical properties of different anchors used for rotator cuff repair. Methods The Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus databases were searched for biomechanical studies on various suture anchors. The search keywords included rotator cuff tears and suture anchors, and two authors conducted study a selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. The failure load, stiffness, and displacement were calculated using the mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Failure modes were estimated using summary odds ratios with 95% CIs. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve was used for the relative ranking probabilities. A sensitivity analysis was performed by excluding studies using synthetic bones. Results The polyetheretherketone (PEEK) (p < 0.001) and all-suture anchors (p < 0.001) had higher failure loads than the biocomposite anchors, whereas no significant difference was observed in stiffness among the anchors. The all-suture (p = 0.006) and biocomposite anchors (p < 0.001) had displacements higher than the metal anchors. The relative ranking of the included anchors in failure loads and displacement changed in sensitivity analysis. The meta-analysis did not find significant differences, but the relative ranking probabilities suggested that all-suture anchor had a higher rate of anchor pull-out and a lower rate of eyelet or suture breakage. In contrast, the metal anchors were associated with a higher number of eyelet breakage episodes. Conclusions All-suture anchors showed significantly higher failure loads than the biocomposite anchors and similar cyclic displacements to the biocomposite and PEEK anchors. There were no significant differences in stiffness between all-suture and conventional suture anchors. The relative ranking of biomechanical properties changed in sensitivity analysis, suggesting the potential effect of bone marrow density. Level of Evidence Level IV. © The Author(s) 2023 |
| abstractGer |
Purpose Suture anchors are commonly used to repair rotator cuff tendons in arthroscopy surgery, and several anchor materials have been created to maximize pull-out strength and minimize iatrogenic damage. We hypothesized that all-suture anchors have biomechanical properties equivalent to those of conventional anchors. Our purpose is to compare the biomechanical properties of different anchors used for rotator cuff repair. Methods The Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus databases were searched for biomechanical studies on various suture anchors. The search keywords included rotator cuff tears and suture anchors, and two authors conducted study a selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. The failure load, stiffness, and displacement were calculated using the mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Failure modes were estimated using summary odds ratios with 95% CIs. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve was used for the relative ranking probabilities. A sensitivity analysis was performed by excluding studies using synthetic bones. Results The polyetheretherketone (PEEK) (p < 0.001) and all-suture anchors (p < 0.001) had higher failure loads than the biocomposite anchors, whereas no significant difference was observed in stiffness among the anchors. The all-suture (p = 0.006) and biocomposite anchors (p < 0.001) had displacements higher than the metal anchors. The relative ranking of the included anchors in failure loads and displacement changed in sensitivity analysis. The meta-analysis did not find significant differences, but the relative ranking probabilities suggested that all-suture anchor had a higher rate of anchor pull-out and a lower rate of eyelet or suture breakage. In contrast, the metal anchors were associated with a higher number of eyelet breakage episodes. Conclusions All-suture anchors showed significantly higher failure loads than the biocomposite anchors and similar cyclic displacements to the biocomposite and PEEK anchors. There were no significant differences in stiffness between all-suture and conventional suture anchors. The relative ranking of biomechanical properties changed in sensitivity analysis, suggesting the potential effect of bone marrow density. Level of Evidence Level IV. © The Author(s) 2023 |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Purpose Suture anchors are commonly used to repair rotator cuff tendons in arthroscopy surgery, and several anchor materials have been created to maximize pull-out strength and minimize iatrogenic damage. We hypothesized that all-suture anchors have biomechanical properties equivalent to those of conventional anchors. Our purpose is to compare the biomechanical properties of different anchors used for rotator cuff repair. Methods The Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus databases were searched for biomechanical studies on various suture anchors. The search keywords included rotator cuff tears and suture anchors, and two authors conducted study a selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. The failure load, stiffness, and displacement were calculated using the mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Failure modes were estimated using summary odds ratios with 95% CIs. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve was used for the relative ranking probabilities. A sensitivity analysis was performed by excluding studies using synthetic bones. Results The polyetheretherketone (PEEK) (p < 0.001) and all-suture anchors (p < 0.001) had higher failure loads than the biocomposite anchors, whereas no significant difference was observed in stiffness among the anchors. The all-suture (p = 0.006) and biocomposite anchors (p < 0.001) had displacements higher than the metal anchors. The relative ranking of the included anchors in failure loads and displacement changed in sensitivity analysis. The meta-analysis did not find significant differences, but the relative ranking probabilities suggested that all-suture anchor had a higher rate of anchor pull-out and a lower rate of eyelet or suture breakage. In contrast, the metal anchors were associated with a higher number of eyelet breakage episodes. Conclusions All-suture anchors showed significantly higher failure loads than the biocomposite anchors and similar cyclic displacements to the biocomposite and PEEK anchors. There were no significant differences in stiffness between all-suture and conventional suture anchors. The relative ranking of biomechanical properties changed in sensitivity analysis, suggesting the potential effect of bone marrow density. Level of Evidence Level IV. © The Author(s) 2023 |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_636 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2144 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4336 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 |
| container_issue |
1 |
| title_short |
Biomechanical comparison of different suture anchors used in rotator cuff repair surgery–all-suture anchors are equivalent to other suture anchors: a systematic review and network meta-analysis |
| url |
https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40634-023-00608-w |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Shih, Chien-An Fang, Ching-Ju Huang, Tzu-Teng Hsu, Kai-Lan Kuan, Fa-Chuan Su, Wei-Ren Hong, Chih-Kai |
| author2Str |
Shih, Chien-An Fang, Ching-Ju Huang, Tzu-Teng Hsu, Kai-Lan Kuan, Fa-Chuan Su, Wei-Ren Hong, Chih-Kai |
| ppnlink |
792130855 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
true |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1186/s40634-023-00608-w |
| up_date |
2024-07-04T03:20:36.092Z |
| _version_ |
1803617027860987905 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR050072943</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230418064747.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230418s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s40634-023-00608-w</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR050072943</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s40634-023-00608-w-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yang, Yi-Shiuan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Biomechanical comparison of different suture anchors used in rotator cuff repair surgery–all-suture anchors are equivalent to other suture anchors: a systematic review and network meta-analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Purpose Suture anchors are commonly used to repair rotator cuff tendons in arthroscopy surgery, and several anchor materials have been created to maximize pull-out strength and minimize iatrogenic damage. We hypothesized that all-suture anchors have biomechanical properties equivalent to those of conventional anchors. Our purpose is to compare the biomechanical properties of different anchors used for rotator cuff repair. Methods The Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus databases were searched for biomechanical studies on various suture anchors. The search keywords included rotator cuff tears and suture anchors, and two authors conducted study a selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. The failure load, stiffness, and displacement were calculated using the mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Failure modes were estimated using summary odds ratios with 95% CIs. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve was used for the relative ranking probabilities. A sensitivity analysis was performed by excluding studies using synthetic bones. Results The polyetheretherketone (PEEK) (p < 0.001) and all-suture anchors (p < 0.001) had higher failure loads than the biocomposite anchors, whereas no significant difference was observed in stiffness among the anchors. The all-suture (p = 0.006) and biocomposite anchors (p < 0.001) had displacements higher than the metal anchors. The relative ranking of the included anchors in failure loads and displacement changed in sensitivity analysis. The meta-analysis did not find significant differences, but the relative ranking probabilities suggested that all-suture anchor had a higher rate of anchor pull-out and a lower rate of eyelet or suture breakage. In contrast, the metal anchors were associated with a higher number of eyelet breakage episodes. Conclusions All-suture anchors showed significantly higher failure loads than the biocomposite anchors and similar cyclic displacements to the biocomposite and PEEK anchors. There were no significant differences in stiffness between all-suture and conventional suture anchors. The relative ranking of biomechanical properties changed in sensitivity analysis, suggesting the potential effect of bone marrow density. Level of Evidence Level IV.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Rotator cuff injuries</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Rotator cuff repair</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Suture anchors</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">All-suture anchors</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Biocomposite anchors</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">PEEK anchor</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Metal anchors</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Shih, Chien-An</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fang, Ching-Ju</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Huang, Tzu-Teng</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hsu, Kai-Lan</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kuan, Fa-Chuan</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Su, Wei-Ren</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hong, Chih-Kai</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0003-3231-1789</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics</subfield><subfield code="d">Berlin : SpringerOpen, 2014</subfield><subfield code="g">10(2023), 1 vom: 17. Apr.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)792130855</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2780021-0</subfield><subfield code="x">2197-1153</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:10</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2023</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:17</subfield><subfield code="g">month:04</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40634-023-00608-w</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_171</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_636</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2004</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2026</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2034</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2049</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2059</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2064</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2068</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2088</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2106</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2108</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2118</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2122</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2143</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2144</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2147</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2148</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2153</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2232</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2336</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2470</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2507</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2522</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4035</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4046</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4242</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4251</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4326</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4333</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4334</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4336</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">10</subfield><subfield code="j">2023</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">17</subfield><subfield code="c">04</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.3989286 |