Short-term results (1 year) of vented versus solid polyetheretherketone anchors in treatment of rotator cuff tears

Abstract

Background: Due to the rotator cuff retear after being surgically repaired, some strategies have been developed. The authors verified that the possibility of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) vented anchors promoted a better clinical and healing process than PEEK solid anchors. Methods: A prospective and randomized study was designed with 38 patients treated with PEEK anchors, 18 of whom with vented anchors and 20 with solid ones. Demographic, clinical and radiologic data were collected before and during surgery (time 0) and at 12 months of follow-up. Results: In the final follow-up (12 months), there was no difference in the visual analogic scale (VAS) scale between groups (1.7 points vs 1.9 points; p = 0.731), neither in the DASH score (34.2 points vs 23.9 points; p = 0.268), nor in absolute Constant score (76.9 points vs 77.3 points; p = 0.910). In MRI, 10 patients had their cuff tear healed in the vented group and 15 in the solid group (p = 0.173). Conclusion: The new designed vented anchors do not add any advantage when compared to solids ones, at least within the first year after surgery.

Local Intraoperative Marrow-Derived Augmentation for Primary Rotator Cuff Repair: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Studies From 2010 to 2022

“…Three of the 4 studies were included in the meta-analysis. 19,32,33 In summary, the included clinical studies have not demonstrated clear significant clinical benefit of vented anchors over nonvented anchors. The pooled retear rates for the 3 studies included in the meta-analysis were 22.5% (18/80) for the interventional group and 27.8% (59/212) for the control group.…”

“…4,18,19,24,28,[31][32][33]37 All 6 randomized controlled trials included in the study achieved a good score based on the CLEAR-NPT criteria. 4,19,24,28,33,37 All 3 nonrandomized comparative studies included in the meta-analysis achieved a "B" rating, according to the MINORS criteria, indicating a low risk of bias. 18,31,32 Four noncomparative studies were evaluated using the MINORS criteria.…”

“…The pooled retear rates for the 3 studies included in the meta-analysis were 22.5% (18/80) for the interventional group and 27.8% (59/212) for the control group. 19,32,33 A fixed-effects model demonstrated no statistically significant difference in the overall retear rate (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.75; P ¼ .28; I 2 ¼ 21%) as well as no difference in the Constant score at the final follow-up (MD, -0.22; 95% CI, -1.40 to 0.97; P ¼ .36; I 2 ¼ 3%) (Figure 3). 19,32,33 A prospective randomized trial by Kim et al 19 EGF, epidermal growth factor; FGF-2, fibroblast growth factor 2; IGF-1, insulin-like growth factor 1; LOE, level of evidence; PDGF-AA, platelet-derived growth factor AA; PDGF-BB, platelet-derived growth factor BB; PEEK, polyetheretherketone; TGF-b1, transforming growth factor b1.…”

“…However, further evaluation is likely necessary, given the relatively low number of patients (N ¼ 94) who were treated with vented anchors across the 3 included studies. 19,32,33 Given the comparative success of marrow stimulation techniques, the results of the vented anchor studies may suggest that current commercially available vented anchors may not achieve the marrow access necessary to induce the desired effects. Marrow access is influenced by the depth of perforation, the number of vents used in the repair, and the diameter of the anchor vent.…”

“…Double-row repair techniques were performed in 80 (25%). The 3 studies 19,32,33 included in the meta-analysis comprised 320 patients (117 male, 203 female). A total of 94 patients underwent RCR with a vented anchor, while 226 served as controls.…”