Intraosseous foreign body granuloma in rotator cuff repair with bioabsorbable suture anchor

Biodegradable implants lead to problems such as cyst formation, soft-tissue inflammation, loose implant fragments or local osteolysis. This report represents the first published case of an intraosseous foreign body granuloma in the humeral head after arthroscopic rotator cuff tear fixation with a poly-l-lactide (PLLA) suture anchor. A 48-year-old female patient presented with pain in her right shoulder. A refixation of her right supraspinatus tendon with a biodegradable suture anchor was performed 11 months ago at an external hospital. Laboratory tests showed normal values for C-reactive protein, leukocytes and the erythrocyte sedimentation rate. No signs of infection or instability were noted. The visual analogue scale (VAS) was 8, the simple shoulder test (SST) was 4 and the American shoulder and elbow surgeons score (ASES) was 44. Plain radiographs showed high lucency in the area of the tuberculum majus. MRI showed an intra- and extraosseous mass surrounded by fluid in this area. Surgical care involved arthroscopic debridement and removal of the suture anchor. Histological examination revealed a foreign body granuloma. At the 18-month follow-up the patient was nearly pain-free. The VAS was 2, SST was 10 and ASES was 88. Foreign body granulomas are a well known but rarely described complication that arises after the use of biodegradable suture anchors in shoulder surgery. Every patient presenting with shoulder pain after usage of a biodegradable fixation material should be evaluated closely. Orthopaedic surgeons should be aware of the possibility of delayed foreign body reactions, especially after using PLLA anchors

Interference Screw vs. Suture Anchor Fixation for Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis: Does it Matter?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Bioabsorbable interference screw fixation has superior biomechanical properties compared to suture anchor fixation for biceps tenodesis. However, it is unknown whether fixation technique influences clinical results.</p> <p>Hypothesis</p> <p>We hypothesize that subpectoral interference screw fixation offers relevant clinical advantages over suture anchor fixation for biceps tenodesis.</p> <p>Study Design</p> <p>Case Series.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We performed a retrospective review of a consecutive series of 88 patients receiving open subpectoral biceps tenodesis with either interference screw fixation (34 patients) or suture anchor fixation (54 patients). Average follow up was 13 months. Outcomes included Visual Analogue Pain Scale (0–10), ASES score, modified Constant score, pain at the tenodesis site, failure of fixation, cosmesis, deformity (popeye) and complications.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There were no failures of fixation in this study. All patients showed significant improvement between their preoperative and postoperative status with regard to pain, ASES score, and abbreviated modified Constant scores. When comparing IF screw versus anchor outcomes, there was no statistical significance difference for VAS (p = 0.4), ASES score (p = 0.2), and modified Constant score (P = 0.09). One patient (3%) treated with IF screw complained of persistent bicipital groove tenderness, versus four patients (7%) in the SA group (nonsignificant).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Subpectoral biceps tenodesis reliably relieves pain and improves function. There was no statistically significant difference in the outcomes studied between the two fixation techniques. Residual pain at the site of tenodesis may be an issue when suture anchors are used in the subpectoral location.</p