Assessing clinical and patient reported outcomes of Sironix suture anchors in rotator cuff and Bankart repair surgeries

Table 1 Summary of patient demographics

Characteristics	Overall, n = 60
Age (year)
mean (SD)	55.45 (60.50)
Sex
Female	27 (45.0)
Male	33 (55.0)
Race
Asian Indian	60 (100.0)

Data are n (%) unless otherwise indicated.

Table 2 Summary of implant details, n (%)

Implant	Overall, n = 60
Name
Ceptre knotted ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene suture titanium anchor 5.5 mm (Indication used: Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair)	48 (80.0)
Spyke knotted ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene suture peek anchor 2.5 mm (Indication used: Arthroscopic Bankart repair)	11 (18.3)
Stativ knotted ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene suture anchor 1.5 mm (Indication used: Arthroscopic Bankart repair)	1 (1.7)
Viplok knotless polyether ether ketone (peek) screw anchor with titanium tip 5.5 mm (Indication used: Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair)	48 (80.0)
Number used
Ceptre knotted ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene suture titanium anchor
1	40 (68.3)
2	8 (11.7)
Spyke knotted ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene suture peek anchor
2	8 (13.3)
3	3 (5.0)
Stativ knotted ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene suture anchor
1	1 (1.7)
Viplok knotless polyether ether ketone (peek) screw anchor with titanium tip
1	29 (48.3)
2	18 (30.0)
3	1 (1.7)

Table 3 Summary of Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation

Characteristic/Statistic	Overall, n = 60	P value
SANE score (affected joint)		< 0.001
mean (SD)	74.33 (9.54)
SANE score (opposite side)
mean (SD)	83.68 (12.65)

P value by two-sample t-test. SANE: Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation.

Table 4 Subgroup analysis based on the indication of repair surgery and duration of follow-up with mean of PENN Shoulder Score, Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score

Subgroup	Quick-DASH score	PSS	SANE score (affected joint)	SANE score (opposite side)
Subgroup analysis based on indication of repair surgery
Arthroscopic Bankart repair, n = 11	31.41 (9.31)	75.91 (6.44)	75.91 (3.75)	87.27 (9.32)
Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, n = 49	32.14 (10.85)	70.69 (10.38)	73.98 (10.41)	82.86 (13.23)
Subgroup analysis based on duration of follow-up
6 months to 1 year, n = 8	30.66 (4.54)	74.88 (6.75)	81.88 (7.53)	90.00 (7.07)
1 year to 2 years, n = 33	34.30 (12.09)	69.15 (11.67)	73.79 (10.23)	85.00 (14.42)
> 2 years, n = 19	28.59 (8.48)	74.63 (6.23)	72.11 (7.69)	78.68 (9.40)

Data are mean (SD). DASH: Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand; PSS: PENN Shoulder Score; SANE: Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation.

Table 5 Summary of clinical outcome

Outcome measure	Description	Interpretation
Repair failure rate	No repair failures observed	N/A; Successful surgeries
Adverse device effects	No adverse device effects reported	N/A; Safe device usage
Duration of follow-up	Total duration of follow-up: 20.67 (5.98) months	N/A; Provides contextual information about the timeframe of the study
Total PSS	71.65 (9.94)	High: Reflects improved shoulder function
Total Quick DASH score	32.01 (10.51)	Low: Indicates lower disability and impairment
SANE score (affected joint)	74.33 (9.54)	High: Signifies better function and less pain in the affected joint
SANE score (opposite side)	83.67 (12.65)	High: Indicates better function and less pain in the unaffected joint compared to the affected joint

Data are mean (SD). DASH: Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand; N/A: Not available; PSS: PENN Shoulder Score; SANE: Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation.