Table 1.
Study and Year | Nation | Specimen, n | Age | Gender | Bone Mineral Density | Insertion Angle | Intervention | Outcomes | Level of Evidence | Risk of Bias |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yamauchi et al., 2022 [40] | Japan | Sawbone model, 160 | N/A | N/A |
1. 10-pounds/cubic foot (160 mg/cm3) 2. 5-pounds/cubic foot (80 mg/cm3) |
90 degrees | Corkscrew FT Ti 4.5 mm, HEALICOIL PK 4.5 mm, Corkscrew Bio 4.75 mm | LTF, Failure mode | IV | High risk |
Rosso et al., 2020 [31] | Switzerland | Sawbone model, 60 | N/A | N/A |
1. Physiological group: 120 mg/cm3 2. Osteoporotic group: 90 mg/cm3 |
45 degrees | TwinFix Ti 4.5 mm, Healix BR 4.5 mm, Iconix 2.3 mm | LTF, STF, DIS | IV | Low risk |
Ntalos et al., 2019 [24] | Germany | Human humerus, 10 | 50-73y | N/A |
1. All-suture anchor: 126 ± 25 mg/cm3 2. Conventional anchor: 127 ± 30 mg/cm3 |
90 degrees |
Y-knot 2.8 mm, CrossFT 4.5 mm |
LTF, STF, DIS, Failure mode | IV | Some concerns |
Ntalos et al., 2019 [25] | Germany | Human humerus, 36 |
22-76y (61.4 ± 11y) |
N/A |
1. 126 ± 18 mg /cm3 2. 126 ± 26 mg /cm3 3. 127 ± 16 mg /cm3 |
45, 90, 110 degrees |
Y-knot 2.8 mm, CrossFT 4.5 mm |
LTF, STF, DIS, Failure mode | IV | Low risk |
Nagra et al., 2017 [23] | United Kingdom | Human humerus, 24 | 58-96y | 16 M, 8F | N/A | N/A |
Y-knot 2.8 mm, TwinFix ultra PK 6.5 mm |
LTF, DIS, Failure mode | IV | Some concerns |
Barber et al., 2010 [3] | United States | Human humerus, 16 | 70-96y | 7 M, 1F | N/A | N/A |
Bio-Corkscrew FT 5.5 mm, CrossFT PK 5.5 mm |
LTF, DIS, Failure mode | IV | Some concerns |
Pietschmann et al., 2009 [28] | Germany | Human humerus, 12 | 27-93y | 8 M, 4F |
1. Non-osteopenic: 109 ± 26 mg/cm3 2. Osteoporotic bones: 41 ± 20 g/cm3 |
45 degrees | SPIRALOK BC 5.0 mm, Super Revo 5.0 mm | LTF, DIS, Failure mode | IV | Some concerns |
LEGEND: Characteristics included author names, publication year, sources of country, specimen type, specimen numbers, age, gender and bone mineral densities of human cadaver, anchor insertion anchor, interventions, outcomes, level of evidence and risk of bias of each study. LTF Load to failure, STF Stiffness, DIS Displacement