Nathan Angerett, Leighann Krasney, Rex Lutz, Timothy Maurer, Scott Michelitch, Albert Lin, Matthew Kelly
{"title":"在治疗肩袖撕裂时,插入式生物可吸收支架锚不逊于标准锚。","authors":"Nathan Angerett, Leighann Krasney, Rex Lutz, Timothy Maurer, Scott Michelitch, Albert Lin, Matthew Kelly","doi":"10.3928/01477447-20241219-02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Failure after rotator cuff repair is typically due to a loss of integrity of the bone-tendon interface. The BioWick anchor (Zimmer-Biomet) is an interpositional scaffold-anchor that was developed to improve tendon-bone healing. The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical efficacy of this novel anchor compared with a standard anchor with respect to retear rates and patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We enrolled 99 patients in a double-anonymized, prospective, randomized controlled trial who underwent rotator cuff repair. Fifty patients were randomized to the novel anchor group and 49 patients were randomized to the standard anchor group. The primary outcome was rotator cuff repair integrity assessed via ultrasound at 6 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Simple Shoulder Test (SST), strength, and active range of motion (AROM) assessed preoperatively and postoperatively at 3 and 6 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no statistically significant differences in demographic data, mean rotator cuff tear size, tobacco use, workers' compensation status, or operative side between the groups. At 6-month follow-up, the retear rate was 22% (n=9) for the novel anchor group vs 23% (n=10) for the standard anchor group (<i>P</i>=.8864). Secondary outcomes, including VAS pain score, ASES score, SST, strength, and AROM measurements, did not differ significantly between the groups at 3- or 6-month follow-up. There were no complications identified in either group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study did not demonstrate superior clinical improvements or decreased retear rates with the use of this novel anchor compared with a standard anchor. [<i>Orthopedics</i>. 2025;48(1):e33-e39.].</p>","PeriodicalId":19631,"journal":{"name":"Orthopedics","volume":" ","pages":"e33-e39"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interpositional Bioresorbable Scaffold-Anchor Appears Non-inferior to a Standard Anchor in the Treatment of Rotator Cuff Tears.\",\"authors\":\"Nathan Angerett, Leighann Krasney, Rex Lutz, Timothy Maurer, Scott Michelitch, Albert Lin, Matthew Kelly\",\"doi\":\"10.3928/01477447-20241219-02\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Failure after rotator cuff repair is typically due to a loss of integrity of the bone-tendon interface. The BioWick anchor (Zimmer-Biomet) is an interpositional scaffold-anchor that was developed to improve tendon-bone healing. The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical efficacy of this novel anchor compared with a standard anchor with respect to retear rates and patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We enrolled 99 patients in a double-anonymized, prospective, randomized controlled trial who underwent rotator cuff repair. Fifty patients were randomized to the novel anchor group and 49 patients were randomized to the standard anchor group. The primary outcome was rotator cuff repair integrity assessed via ultrasound at 6 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Simple Shoulder Test (SST), strength, and active range of motion (AROM) assessed preoperatively and postoperatively at 3 and 6 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no statistically significant differences in demographic data, mean rotator cuff tear size, tobacco use, workers' compensation status, or operative side between the groups. At 6-month follow-up, the retear rate was 22% (n=9) for the novel anchor group vs 23% (n=10) for the standard anchor group (<i>P</i>=.8864). Secondary outcomes, including VAS pain score, ASES score, SST, strength, and AROM measurements, did not differ significantly between the groups at 3- or 6-month follow-up. There were no complications identified in either group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study did not demonstrate superior clinical improvements or decreased retear rates with the use of this novel anchor compared with a standard anchor. [<i>Orthopedics</i>. 2025;48(1):e33-e39.].</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19631,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Orthopedics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e33-e39\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Orthopedics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20241219-02\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/26 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopedics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20241219-02","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Interpositional Bioresorbable Scaffold-Anchor Appears Non-inferior to a Standard Anchor in the Treatment of Rotator Cuff Tears.
Background: Failure after rotator cuff repair is typically due to a loss of integrity of the bone-tendon interface. The BioWick anchor (Zimmer-Biomet) is an interpositional scaffold-anchor that was developed to improve tendon-bone healing. The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical efficacy of this novel anchor compared with a standard anchor with respect to retear rates and patient outcomes.
Materials and methods: We enrolled 99 patients in a double-anonymized, prospective, randomized controlled trial who underwent rotator cuff repair. Fifty patients were randomized to the novel anchor group and 49 patients were randomized to the standard anchor group. The primary outcome was rotator cuff repair integrity assessed via ultrasound at 6 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Simple Shoulder Test (SST), strength, and active range of motion (AROM) assessed preoperatively and postoperatively at 3 and 6 months.
Results: There were no statistically significant differences in demographic data, mean rotator cuff tear size, tobacco use, workers' compensation status, or operative side between the groups. At 6-month follow-up, the retear rate was 22% (n=9) for the novel anchor group vs 23% (n=10) for the standard anchor group (P=.8864). Secondary outcomes, including VAS pain score, ASES score, SST, strength, and AROM measurements, did not differ significantly between the groups at 3- or 6-month follow-up. There were no complications identified in either group.
Conclusion: This study did not demonstrate superior clinical improvements or decreased retear rates with the use of this novel anchor compared with a standard anchor. [Orthopedics. 2025;48(1):e33-e39.].
期刊介绍:
For over 40 years, Orthopedics, a bimonthly peer-reviewed journal, has been the preferred choice of orthopedic surgeons for clinically relevant information on all aspects of adult and pediatric orthopedic surgery and treatment. Edited by Robert D''Ambrosia, MD, Chairman of the Department of Orthopedics at the University of Colorado, Denver, and former President of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, as well as an Editorial Board of over 100 international orthopedists, Orthopedics is the source to turn to for guidance in your practice.
The journal offers access to current articles, as well as several years of archived content. Highlights also include Blue Ribbon articles published full text in print and online, as well as Tips & Techniques posted with every issue.