Attaching artificial Achilles and tibialis cranialis tendons to bone using suture anchors in a rabbit model: assessment of outcomes
preprint
OA: closed
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective The purpose of this study was to investigate the factors associated with outcomes of attaching artificial tendons to bone using suture anchors for replacement of biological tendons in rabbits. Study Design Metal suture anchors with braided composite sutures of varying sizes (USP #1, #2, or #5) were used to secure artificial tendons replacing both the Achilles and tibialis cranialis tendons in 12 New Zealand White rabbits. Artificial tendons were implanted either at the time of (immediate replacement, n=8), or four weeks after (delayed replacement, n=4) resection of the biological tendon. Hindlimb radiographs of the rabbits were obtained immediately after surgery and approximately every other week until the study endpoint (16 weeks post-surgery). Results All suture anchors used for the tibialis cranialis artificial tendons remained secure and did not fail during the study. The suture linkage between the Achilles artificial tendon and anchor failed in 9 of 12 rabbits. In all cases, the mode of failure was suture breakage distant from the knot. Based on radiographic analysis, the mean estimated failure timepoint was 5.3±2.3 weeks post-surgery, with a range of 2-10 weeks. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests revealed no significant effect of tendon implantation timing or suture size on either the timing or frequency of suture anchor failure. Conclusion Based on the mode of failure, suture mechanical properties, and suture anchor design, we suspect that the cause of failure was wear of the suture against the edges of the eyelet in the suture anchor post, which reduced the suture strength below in vivo loads. Suture anchor designs differed for the tibialis cranialis and did not fail during the period of study. Future studies are needed to optimize suture anchor mechanical performance under different loading conditions and suture anchor design features.
My notes (saved in your browser only)
Citation neighborhood (no data yet)
We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2024) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.
References (29)
- doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2012.10.018 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/s0749-8063(05)80500-6 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/0749-8063(95)90084-5 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2006.04.106 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2003.09.018 via crossref
- doi:10.1053/jars.2003.50032 via crossref
- doi:10.1177/0363546504271746 via crossref
- doi:10.4055/cios20317 via crossref
- doi:10.15406/bbij.2017.05.00128 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2018.07.010 via crossref
- doi:10.3390/biomedicines10010019 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2023.111520 via crossref
- doi:10.1186/1471-2474-11-230 via crossref
- doi:10.1186/s12891-019-2834-3 via crossref
- doi:10.3389/fphys.2021.767445 via crossref
- doi:10.2106/00004623-199907000-00017 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech.2009.10.003 via crossref
- doi:10.1177/0363546505282621 via crossref
- doi:10.1002/jor.20971 via crossref
- doi:10.1002/jor.22043 via crossref
- doi:10.1177/0363546510396305 via crossref
- doi:10.1053/jars.2002.36115 via crossref
- doi:10.1097/01.sap.0000181341.62818.32 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/j.jor.2019.12.004 via crossref
- doi:10.1186/s12891-022-05371-0 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2016.04.022 via crossref
- doi:10.3109/17453676908989506 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2018.11.008 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.02.019 via crossref
Source provenance
- crossref
- last seen: 2026-05-24T01:00:27.920856+00:00
- europepmc
- last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
- unpaywall
- last seen: 2026-08-17T06:25:09.426038+00:00