ReviewBiomimetics (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Comparing Biomechanical Properties of Bioabsorbable Suture Anchors: A Comprehensive Review.
Review in Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Extensor carpi radialis brevis tendon repair is necessary for arthroscopic treatment of refractory lateral epicondylitis of the elbow: a prospective randomized comparative study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Trial
- Median Sternotomy Closure Using an Ultra-High-Molecular-Weight Polyethylene Suture Following Thymectomy in a Dog: A Case Report.Veterinary sciences · 2026Article
- Evolution of Anchor Polymer Systems Used in Arthroscopic Shoulder Surgery-A Comprehensive Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Short Expandable-Wing Suture Anchor for Osteoporotic and Small Bone Fixation: Validation in a 3D-Printed Coracoclavicular Reconstruction Model.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Suture Materials: Conventional and Stimulatory-Responsive Absorbable Polymers with Biomimetic Function.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Suture anchors (SAs) are medical devices used to connect soft tissue to bone. Traditionally these were made of metal; however, in the past few decades, bio-absorbable suture anchors have been created to overcome revision surgeries and other complications caused by metallic SAs. This systematic review aims to analyze the biomechanical properties of these SAs to gain a better understanding of their safety and utilization. A comprehensive systematic review that adhered to the PRISMA guidelines was conducted. Primary outcomes were that the pull-out strength of SAs, the rate of degradation secondarily, and the biocompatibility of all SAs were analyzed. After screening 347 articles, 16 were included in this review. These studies revealed that the pull-out strength of bio-absorbable SAs was not inferior to that of their non-absorbable comparatives. The studies also revealed that the rate of degradation varies widely from 7 to 90 months. It also showed that not all absorbable SAs were fully absorbed within the expected timeframe. This systematic review demonstrates that existing suture anchor materials exhibit comparable pull-out strengths, material-specific degradation rates, and variable biocompatibility. All-suture anchors had promising results in biocompatibility, but evidence fails to identify a single most favorable material. Higher-powered studies that incorporate tissue-specific characteristics, such as rotator cuff tear size, are warranted. To meet demonstrated shortcomings in strength and biocompatibility, we propose silk fibroin as a novel material for suture anchor design for its customizable properties and superior strength.
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.