Biomechanical analysis of a double-loaded glenoid anchor configuration: can fewer anchors provide equivalent fixation?

BACKGROUND

Bankart repair with multiple anchor holes concentrated in the anterior-inferior glenoid may contribute to glenoid weakening and potentially may induce glenoid failure.

PURPOSE: To compare the biomechanical strength of a Bankart repair construct that used 3 single-loaded suture anchors versus a repair construct that used 2 double-loaded suture anchors.

STUDY

DESIGN

Comparative laboratory study.

METHODS

A standard Bankart lesion was created in 18 human cadaveric shoulders (9 matched pairs). Within each matched pair, 1 repair construct used 3 single-loaded anchors, whereas the other used 2 double-loaded suture anchors. Measured outcomes (load, stiffness, and energy absorbed) were recorded at failure and at 2 mm of labral displacement. Constructs were loaded to failure with a materials testing device that had differential variable reluctance transducers for displacement measurements.

RESULTS

The double-loaded anchor construct had a significantly higher ultimate tensile load (944 ± 231 vs 784 ± 287 N; P = .03). For the other measures (load at 2 mm of displacement, energy absorbed at failure and at 2 mm of displacement and stiffness), there were no significant differences between tested constructs.

CONCLUSION

A Bankart repair construct that used 2 double-loaded anchors was either superior to or equal to a repair construct that used 3 single-loaded anchors in all measured outcomes.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Using 2 double-loaded suture anchors for a Bankart repair may limit anchor holes in the glenoid and reduce the risk of postsurgical glenoid fracture while providing a stable repair construct.