ArticleJSES international2024
A biomechanical study to optimize superior capsular reconstruction operative technique.
Article in JSES international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomechanical influence of surgical and graft-related factors in superior capsule reconstruction: A systematic review.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Review
- Arthroscopic Superior Capsular Reconstruction Using Autogenous Peroneus Longus Tendon Bridging Repair for Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tear.Arthroscopy techniques · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The goals of this study were to optimize superior capsular reconstruction by assessing the relative fixation strength of 4 suture anchors; evaluating 3 glenoid neck locations for fixation strength and bone mineral density (BMD); determining if there is a correlation between BMD and fixation strength; and determining which portal sites have optimal access to the posterosuperior and anterosuperior glenoid neck for anchor placement. Methods: Twenty cadaveric specimens were randomized into 4 groups: all-suture anchor (FiberTak), conventional 3.0-mm knotless suture anchor (SutureTak), 3.9-mm knotless PEEK (polyetheretherketone) Corkscrew anchor, and 4.5-mm Bio-Corkscrew anchor. Each specimen was prepared with 3 anchors into the glenoid: an anterosuperior anchor, superior anchor, and posterosuperior anchor. All anchors were inserted into the superior glenoid neck 5 mm from the glenoid rim. A materials testing system performed cyclic testing (250 cycles) followed by load-to-failure testing at 12.5 mm/s. Cyclic elongation, first cycle excursion, maximum load, and stiffness were recorded. Using custom software, BMD was calculated at each anchor location. This software was also used to assess access to the posterosuperior and anterosuperior glenoid neck from standard arthroscopic portal positions. Results: There was no significant difference in cyclic elongation ( Conclusion: The 4.5-mm Bio-Corkscrew anchor provided the most robust fixation to the glenoid during superior capsular reconstruction as it demonstrated the strongest maximum load, had minimal elongation, had minimal first cycle excursion, and did not fail during cyclic testing. The superior glenoid neck had the highest BMD; however, there was no correlation between BMD or glenoid anchor location and biomechanical outcomes. The posterior portal and anterior portal provided optimal access to the posterosuperior glenoid neck and anterosuperior glenoid neck, respectively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.