Bony Ingrowth of Coil-Type Open-Architecture Anchors Compared With Screw-Type PEEK Anchors for the Medial Row in Rotator Cuff Repair: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Jorge Chahla, Joseph N. Liu, Brandon Manderle, Alexander Beletsky, Brandon Cabarcas, Anirudh K. Gowd, Nozomu Inoue, Susan Chubinskaya, Scott Trenhaile, Brian Forsythe, Brian Cole, Nikhil Verma

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

14 Scopus citations

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate outcomes of screw-type and coil-type open-architecture suture anchors with respect to bony ingrowth, release of biological markers, and patient-reported outcome measures when used in rotator cuff repair (RCR). Methods: Forty patients undergoing arthroscopic RCR for full-thickness rotator cuff tears were enrolled and prospectively randomized to receive a screw-type (19 patients) or coil-type (21 patients) suture anchor for the medial row during repair. All repairs used a transosseous-equivalent configuration with footprint anchors laterally. Marrow elements released during surgery were evaluated for 9 cytokine markers (insulin-like growth factor 1, fibroblast growth factor 2, bone morphogenetic proteins 7 and 2, platelet-derived growth factors AA and BB, epidermal growth factor, transforming growth factor beta1, and vascular endothelial growth factor). Postoperative computed tomography scans were performed at 6 months. Range of motion, strength, and validated patient-reported outcome measures (Simple Shoulder Test, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, visual analog scale, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores) were gathered before the operation and at 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. Results: Bone mineral density surrounding the coil-type anchor was significantly greater than that surrounding the screw-type anchor (P =.005). Bone mineral density values within the coil-type and screw-type anchors were comparable (P =.527); however, a larger amount of total bone mineral mass (in milligrams) was shown within the coil-type anchor owing to its larger volume (P <.01). Marrow elements released at the repair site were similar between groups (P >.05). Postoperatively, no statistically significant difference was found between groups for clinical outcome measures at 6 months or 1 year. Retear and complication rates were similar between groups (P >.05). Conclusions: Both the coil-type and screw-type anchors can be reliably used for RCR and produce similar clinical outcomes. The coil-type anchor resulted in superior bony growth surrounding the anchor and a larger total bone mineral mass within the anchor owing to its larger volume. Level of Evidence: Level II, randomized prospective comparative study.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)952-961
Number of pages10
JournalArthroscopy - Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery
Volume36
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2020
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Bony Ingrowth of Coil-Type Open-Architecture Anchors Compared With Screw-Type PEEK Anchors for the Medial Row in Rotator Cuff Repair: A Randomized Controlled Trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this