Suture Anchor vs. Bone Tunnels for Cuff Repair
We cannot recommend for or against the preferential use of suture anchors versus bone tunnels for repair of full thickness rotator cuff tears.
Rationale
The primary technical goal of rotator cuff repair surgery is the stable fixation of the torn tendon to the tuberosity of the humerus. Numerous repair techniques have been described, the two most common of which rely upon the use of bone tunnels (trans-osseous technique) or suture anchors. We identified no studies that specifically compared suture anchor to bone tunnel fixation in rotator cuff repair surgery. Three studies105, 106, 107 address the use of suture anchors while one study83 addresses bone tunnel technique. Since no comparative studies were identified and since the four studies found were evaluated as limited evidence, we cannot recommend one fixation technique over another. Based on the available evidence, either fixation technique, when applied properly, can result in favorable outcomes.
- (105) Charousset C, Grimberg J, Duranthon LD, Bellaiche L, Petrover D. Can a double-row anchorage technique improve tendon healing in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair?: A prospective, nonrandomized, comparative study of double-row and single-row anchorage techniques with computed tomographic arthrography tendon healing assessment. Am J Sports Med 2007;35(8):1247-1253.
- (106) Anderson K, Boothby M, Aschenbrener D, van HM. Outcome and structural integrity after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using 2 rows of fixation: minimum 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2006;34(12):1899-1905.
- (107) Franceschi F, Ruzzini L, Longo UG et al. Equivalent clinical results of arthroscopic single-row and double-row suture anchor repair for rotator cuff tears: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med 2007;35(8):1254-1260.
- (83) Boehm TD, Werner A, Radtke S, Mueller T, Kirschner S, Gohlke F. The effect of suture materials and techniques on the outcome of repair of the rotator cuff: a prospective, randomised study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005;87(6):819-823.