Skip to content

Clinicians › Shoulder

Suture Anchors and How Repairs Are Held to Bone

52 citationsUpdated Aug 2026

For patients: a plain-language version of this topic is available. See the patient guide.

Overview

Suture anchors secure soft tissue to bone in and about the shoulder, with bioabsorbable anchors remaining a safe, reproducible, and consistent implant [20]. Reported complications of bioabsorbable anchors amount to a fraction of the total anchors implanted [20]. There has been a major shift from metallic to bioabsorbable anchors due to higher complication rates with metallic anchors and lower rates with bioabsorbable ones [11]. All-suture anchors have similar or better mechanical properties than regular anchors [2]. They feature a low-profile design that preserves bone tissue [2]. Various bone changes are seen after implantation of an all-suture anchor, but these are not clinically relevant [1].

Complications related to suture anchors and tacks can be categorized as technique-related or device-related issues [8]. Prevention of complications depends on the surgeon's familiarity with the devices and knowledge of their indications and limitations [8]. Careful attention to proper anchor insertion techniques can limit the potential for complications [3]. Newer materials may address concerns of biocompatibility and material strength [3]. Routine radiographic follow-up is recommended after use of metallic anchors to ensure identification of early failure by anchor pullout [6].

Clinical outcomes are favorable with appropriate anchor usage. Good long-term results were observed after arthroscopic Bankart repair in patients older than 20 years with 3 or more suture anchors used [9]. The repair technique (knotted suture-bridging or knotless tape-bridging) did not have a significant effect on the final outcome at a mean of 2.9 years [4]. Bar anchoring with a threaded Steinmann pin is a viable solution for coping with intraoperative anchor pullout that utilizes primary anchor sites with acceptable results [10].

Anatomy & Pathophysiology

Suture anchors and tacks are influenced by biological and biomechanical factors that determine their successful evaluation and use [7]. Biomechanical studies investigating glenoid-based labral repairs with suture anchors for shoulder instability and SLAP lesions lack consistent testing methods [15]. Clinical data is necessary to determine if biomechanical results for all-suture anchor fixation in rotator cuff repair can be translated clinically [24].

Double-Row vs. Single-Row Fixation: Biomechanical properties of double-row rotator cuff repair are superior to single-row repair [26]. Double-row fixation restores the rotator cuff footprint and shows biomechanical superiority compared to single-row fixation, but there is no evidence that it results in better functional outcomes [31]. Available biomechanical studies favor double-row repair for rotator cuff tears, and radiographic studies suggest a beneficial effect on structural integrity of the reattached tendon or reduced recurrent defect rates [43]. The presence of a massive rotator cuff tear significantly decreases the likelihood of a surgeon utilizing a double-row knotless construct [47].

Augmentation and Construct Design: Arthroscopic single-row repair augmented with human dermal allograft patch results in improved shoulder function and greater range of motion compared to nonaugmented repair in patients with large to massive posterosuperior rotator cuff tears [34]. Advancements in suture anchor design have fostered the transition from open to arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, with current suture-bridging constructs surpassing the biomechanical strength of transosseous repairs and showing impressive healing rates [44]. The only observed advantage of arthroscopic transosseous anchorless repair over suture anchor repair for rotator cuff tears is a statistically superior improvement in abduction range of motion [46].

Knotless vs. Knotted Techniques: Rotator cuff tendons repaired via the knotted transosseous-equivalent (TOE) technique display superior time-zero biomechanical properties, including greater ultimate load to failure, compared to those repaired via the knotless TOE technique [36]. Biomechanical studies on knotted versus knotless anchors for labral repair show conflicting evidence, though operative times may be reduced with knotless anchors [37]. Knotless arthroscopic Bankart repair is supported by level II to IV clinical and biomechanical evidence as an effective procedure with excellent functional outcomes and low rates of complication and reoperation [35].

Glenoid Anatomy and Anchor Behavior: All-suture anchors with various deployment configurations produce different tunnel enlargements, with diameter more pronounced at the inferior region of the anterior glenoid [38]. Knotless bioabsorbable anchors placed on the glenoid face for arthroscopic Bankart repair are not associated with postoperative arthritis and shoulder stiffness, including external rotation deficit, which is not affected by anchor position on the glenoid face [39]. There is no biomechanically significant difference between simple, horizontal mattress, and double-row methods in Bankart repair [40]. Among patients with follow-up data for glenoid labral repair using all-suture anchors, 14% underwent subsequent ipsilateral shoulder procedures [42].

Classification

Complication Phenotypes: Postage stamp fractures are a distinct complication profile observed frequently in male patients aged 25 years or younger participating in sporting activities [5]. These fractures are also associated with fractures initially stabilized with 3 or more anchors [5], stabilization using conventional knot-tying anchors [5], and cases that subsequently experienced osteolysis around anchor sites [5].

Fixation Modality Comparison: In arthroscopic repair of isolated type II SLAP lesions, patients treated using knotted anchors were significantly more likely to experience a postoperative complication compared with patients treated using knotless anchors [13]. Conversely, for isolated posterior labral tears, there was no clear difference in recurrent instability or revision surgery between knotted and knotless fixation methods [23]. The literature comparing these modalities for posterior tears is limited by low-level evidence and lack of standardization [23].

Repair Technique Classification: For arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, the stump classification is significantly correlated with retear in suture-bridge and double-row repair techniques [27]. Both double-row and suture bridge repairs demonstrate lower retear rates than single-row repair in most tear size categories [33].

Biomechanical Standardization: Biomechanical studies evaluating glenoid-based labral repairs with suture anchors do not use consistent testing methods [15].

Other Considerations: Careful attention to proper anchor insertion techniques can limit the potential for complications with bioabsorbable anchors [3], and newer bioabsorbable materials may address concerns of biocompatibility and material strength [3]. Prevention of suture anchor and tack complications depends on the surgeon's familiarity with the devices and knowledge of their indications and limitations [8]. Bar anchoring with a threaded Steinmann pin is a viable solution for intraoperative anchor pullout that utilizes primary anchor sites with acceptable results [10]. Overall failure rates following shoulder stabilization procedures in the military with use of suture tape were consistent with previously published literature in similar populations [18], and clinical study results validate prior biomechanical studies supporting the use of suture tape [18].

Clinical Presentation

Complication Classification: Complications related to suture anchors and tacks are categorized as technique-related or device-related issues [8]. Prevention depends on the surgeon's familiarity with the devices and knowledge of their indications and limitations [8]. Suture anchor complications, such as prolapse, remain a concern in medical practice [25].

Anchor Selection and Biomechanics: All-suture anchors demonstrate similar or better mechanical properties than regular anchors, with a low-profile design that preserves bone tissue [2]. Careful attention to proper anchor insertion techniques limits the potential for complications, and newer materials may address concerns of biocompatibility and material strength [3]. No inflammatory reactions were documented in the studied biodegradable lactide-containing suture anchors [17].

Clinical Outcomes and Indications: Good long-term results were observed after arthroscopic Bankart repair in patients older than 20 years when 3 or more suture anchors were used [9]. Excellent short-term clinical outcomes and substantial improvements were demonstrated for patients undergoing double-row suture bridge rotator cuff repair (RCR) with all-suture anchors for medial row fixation [12]. No significant differences were evident between one-point and two-point fixation in the short-term follow-up for anatomic reconstruction using one vs. two suture anchors after non-simultaneous bilateral distal biceps brachii tendon rupture [14]. The data in the published literature do not support the use of double-row suture anchor fixation to improve clinical outcome, but there are some studies that report that double-row suture anchor fixation may improve tendon healing [16]. Overall failure rates were consistent with previously published literature in similar populations, and this clinical study validates prior biomechanical studies supporting the use of suture tape in shoulder stabilization procedures in the military [18].

Radiographic and Structural Findings: Radiolucent rings around bioabsorbable anchors after rotator cuff repair are not associated with clinical outcomes [19]. Most radiolucent rings appeared at anteromedial anchors, indicating that mechanical factors may play a role for the radiolucencies [19].

Risk Factors and Salvage Techniques: Postage stamp fractures were reported frequently in patients who were male, age 25 years or younger, and participants in sporting activities, and in fractures initially stabilized with 3 or more anchors or conventional knot-tying anchors or that experienced osteolysis around anchor sites [5]. Bar anchoring with a threaded Steinmann pin is a viable solution that utilizes primary anchor sites with acceptable results for coping with intraoperative anchor pullout during arthroscopic rotator cuff repair [10].

Investigations

Plain radiography: Postage stamp fractures are reported frequently in patients who are male, aged 25 years or younger, participants in sporting activities, or those who experienced osteolysis around anchor sites [5]. Most radiolucent rings around bioabsorbable anchors appear at anteromedial anchors [19]. These radiolucencies are not associated with clinical outcomes, although mechanical factors may play a role in their formation [19].

MRI: MRI data suggest improved healing rates in single-row (SR) repairs in the entire patient population [48]. Double-row (DR) repair showed improved radiographic healing when similar-sized tears were compared [48]. Radiographic healing is significantly improved in double row repairs compared to single row repairs [50].

Other Considerations: Prevention of suture anchor complications depends on the surgeon's familiarity with the devices and knowledge of their indications and limitations [8]. Newer anchor materials may address concerns of biocompatibility and material strength [3]. Use of bioabsorbable anchors should be reconsidered because of possible interference with revision surgery [51]. Double-row rotator cuff repair using a novel all-suture soft anchor medial row demonstrated excellent short-term clinical outcomes and substantial improvements for patients undergoing suture bridge RCR [12]. Patients who undergo arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (aRCR) using all-suture medial row anchors have increased abduction and strength postoperatively [49]. These patients also have lower pain scores compared to traditional suture anchors during a transosseous equivalent repair [49]. No significant differences were evident between one-point and two-point fixation in the short-term follow-up for non-simultaneous bilateral distal biceps brachii tendon rupture [14].

Treatment

Non-Operative

The provided evidence does not contain data supporting specific conservative management strategies such as physical therapy, injections, or activity modification for suture anchor repairs.

Operative

Surgical Approach / Technique: Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair utilizing a suture bridge technique yields improvements in clinical outcome measures and a relatively high degree of patient satisfaction [28]. However, repair integrity is not maintained in many cases of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair by this technique [28]. The modified arthroscopic en masse suture bridge technique is effective for repairing delaminated rotator cuff tears (RCTs) and yields favourable clinical outcomes comparable to those of nondelaminated tears [29]. For flexor digitorum profundus (FDP) reinsertion, suture anchor repair demonstrates increased initial construct stiffness and less gap formation compared to suture button pullout, although there are no significant differences in ultimate failure load between the two methods [32].

Implant Selection: Double-row rotator cuff repair using a novel all-suture soft anchor medial row demonstrated excellent short-term clinical outcomes and substantial improvements [12]. Conversely, data in the published literature do not support the use of double-row (DR) suture anchor fixation to improve clinical outcome [16], although some studies report that DR suture anchor fixation may improve tendon healing [16]. Tape-like double-row suture bridge repair was clinically non-superior to conventional double-row suture bridge repair despite theoretical biomechanical advantages [22]. Bioabsorbable poly-L/D-lactic acid (PLDLA) anchor material led to significantly more SLAP repair failures and reoperations compared with nonabsorbable suture anchors [45].

Other Considerations: Postage stamp fractures were reported frequently in patients who experienced osteolysis around anchor sites [5].

Complications

Other Considerations: Postage stamp fractures (anterior glenoid rim fractures) were reported frequently in patients who were male, age 25 years or younger, and participants in sporting activities [5]. Postage stamp fractures were reported frequently in patients with fractures initially stabilized with 3 or more anchors [5]. Postage stamp fractures were reported frequently in patients using conventional knot-tying anchors [5]. There has been a major shift from metallic to bioabsorbable anchors due to higher complication rates with metallic anchors [11]. There has been a major shift from metallic to bioabsorbable anchors due to lower complication rates with bioabsorbable ones [11]. Reported complications with bioabsorbable anchors amount to a fraction of the total anchors implanted [20]. Suture anchor designs and materials have evolved to minimize complications [41].

Recovery

Light activity (weeks): Evidence does not provide specific week ranges for light activity, desk work, driving, or light ADLs.

Full activity (months): Evidence does not provide specific month ranges for manual work, sport, or full ROM/strength return.

Complete recovery / outcome plateau (months): Longer follow-up time is associated with better patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following arthroscopic double-row suture-bridge rotator cuff repair (RCR) in both all-suture and solid medial row anchor groups [21]. Long-term follow-up remains necessary to determine if the durability of double-row transosseous-equivalent rotator cuff repairs and the structural integrity of these constructs maintain their performance over time [30].

Rehabilitation protocol: Evidence does not specify PT phasing, immobilisation duration, weight-bearing/ROM progression, or sling/brace removal timing.

Functional milestones: Double-row suture bridge RCR with all-suture anchors for medial row fixation demonstrated excellent short-term clinical outcomes and substantial improvements [12]. No significant differences were evident between one-point and two-point fixation in the short-term follow-up for distal biceps brachii tendon rupture [14].

Other Considerations: The security of the 1.8-mm acetabular all-suture anchor at the time of implantation is exceptionally reliable [52]. There is no demonstrable learning curve in employing the 1.8-mm acetabular all-suture anchor in the hands of an experienced surgeon [52].

Key Evidence

  • [L3] Various bone changes are seen after implantation of an all-suture anchor, but these are not clinically relevant. [1] (10.1177/17585732221127433)
  • [L4] All-suture anchors have similar or better mechanical properties than regular anchors, with low-profile design preserving bone tissue. [2] (10.1016/j.asmr.2020.02.007)
  • [L4] Careful attention to proper anchor insertion techniques can limit the potential for complications, and newer materials may address concerns of biocompatibility and material strength. [3] (10.1016/j.arthro.2008.08.018)
  • [L3] The repair technique (knotted suture-bridging or knotless tape-bridging) did not have a significant effect on the final outcome at a mean of 2.9 years. [4] (10.1007/s00402-017-2750-7)
  • [L4] Postage stamp fractures were reported frequently in patients who were male, age 25 years or younger, and participants in sporting activities and in fractures initially stabilized with 3 or more anchors or conventional knot-tying anchors or that experienced osteolysis around anchor sites. [5] (10.1016/j.arthro.2019.02.047)
  • [L3] We recommend routine radiographic follow-up after use of metallic anchors to ensure identification of early failure by anchor pullout. [6] (10.1016/j.arthro.2009.08.015)
  • [L5] The goals of this article are to review the biological and biomechanical factors that influence the successful evaluation and use of suture anchors and tacks. [7] (10.1177/0363546505282621)
  • [L4] Complications related to suture anchors and tacks can be categorized as technique-related or device-related issues, and prevention depends on the surgeon's familiarity with the devices and knowledge of their indications and limitations. [8] (10.1177/0363546505284240)
  • [L4] Good longterm results were observed after arthroscopic Bankart repair in patients older than 20 years with 3 or more suture anchors used. [9] (10.1016/j.jse.2018.09.027)
  • [L3] While no single technique is overwhelmingly superior, bar anchoring with a threaded Steinmann pin is a viable solution that utilizes primary anchor sites with acceptable results. [10] (10.1007/s00167-020-05935-4)
  • [L5] There has been a major shift from metallic to bioabsorbable anchors due to higher complication rates with metallic anchors and lower rates with bioabsorbable ones. [11] (10.1016/j.arthro.2007.05.011)
  • [L4] Our study demonstrated excellent short-term clinical outcomes and substantial improvements for patients undergoing double-row suture bridge RCR with all-suture anchors for medial row fixation. [12] (10.1177/23259671231192134)
  • [L4] Patients treated using knotted anchors were significantly more likely to experience a postoperative complication compared with patients treated using knotless anchors after arthroscopic repair of isolated type II SLAP lesions. [13] (10.1177/2325967120911361)
  • [Case_report] In this case, no significant differences were evident between one-point and two-point fixation in the short-term follow-up. [14] (10.1186/s12891-020-03304-3)
  • [L1] This systematic review demonstrated a clear lack of consistency in cadaver studies investigating biomechanical properties after surgical repair with suture anchors for shoulder instability and SLAP lesions. [15] (10.1016/j.arthro.2021.08.035)
  • [L2] At present, the data in the published literature do not support the use of DR suture anchor fixation to improve clinical outcome, but there are some studies that report that DR suture anchor fixation may improve tendon healing. [16] (10.1016/j.arthro.2009.02.005)
  • [L4] No inflammatory reactions were documented in the studied anchors. [17] (10.1016/j.arthro.2014.02.011)
  • [L3] Overall failure rates were consistent with previously published literature in similar populations and this clinical study validates prior biomechanical studies supporting the use of suture tape. [18] (10.1177/2325967124s00113)
  • [Paper] Most radiolucent rings appeared at anteromedial anchors, indicating that mechanical factors may play a role for the radiolucencies. [19] (10.1007/s00402-017-2772-1)
  • [L5] Bioabsorbable anchors remain a safe, reproducible, and consistent implant to secure soft tissue to bone in and about the shoulder, with reported complications amounting to a fraction of the total anchors implanted. [20] (10.1177/0363546511417573)
  • [L2] Following arthroscopic double-row suture-bridge RCR, longer follow-up time was associated with better patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in both anchor type groups. [21] (10.1016/j.xrrt.2025.100639)
  • [L3] Tape-like double-row suture bridge repair was clinically non-superior to conventional double-row suture bridge repair despite theoretical biomechanical advantages. [22] (10.1007/s00167-023-07454-4)
  • [L4] There was no clear difference in recurrent instability or revision surgery between knotted and knotless fixation methods, though the literature is limited by low-level evidence and lack of standardization. [23] (10.1016/j.asmr.2023.100837)
  • [L5] Additional clinical data is necessary to determine if these biomechanical results can be translated clinically. [24] (10.1177/2325967118s00175)
  • [Case_report] Suture anchor complications, such as prolapse, are a concern in medical practice. [25] (10.1186/s12891-024-07476-0)
  • [L2] The current literature reveals that the biomechanical properties of a double-row rotator cuff repair are superior to a single-row repair. [26] (10.1016/j.jse.2009.07.002)
  • [L3] The stump classification was significantly correlated with retear in the suture-bridge and double-row repair techniques. [27] (10.1007/s00167-020-06415-5)
  • [L4] Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair by a suture bridge technique yields improvements in clinical outcome measures and a relatively high degree of patient satisfaction despite the fact that repair integrity is not maintained in many cases. [28] (10.1016/j.jse.2014.02.021)
  • [L4] The modified arthroscopic en masse suture bridge technique was effective for repairing delaminated RCTs, yielding favourable clinical outcomes comparable to those of nondelaminated tears. [29] (10.1002/ksa.12412)
  • [L4] Long-term follow-up will be necessary to determine if the durability of these repairs and the structural integrity of these constructs maintain their performance over time. [30] (10.1177/0363546510397725)
  • [L4] Although double-row fixation restores the rotator cuff footprint and shows biomechanical superiority, there is no evidence that it results in better functional outcomes compared to single-row fixation. [31] (10.1016/j.arthro.2007.01.031)
  • [L1] Via meta-analysis, there was increased initial construct stiffness and less gap formation for suture anchor repair compared to suture button pullout for FDP reinsertion, with no significant differences for ultimate failure load. [32] (10.1177/15589447221126760)
  • [L4] Both double-row and suture bridge repairs have lower retear rates than single-row repair in most tear size categories. [33] (10.1016/j.arthro.2015.06.004)
  • [L3] The augmentation also resulted in improved shoulder function and greater range of motion compared with the nonaugmented group. [34] (10.1016/j.jse.2023.08.002)
  • [L4] Current level II to IV clinical and biomechanical evidence supports knotless arthroscopic Bankart repair as an effective procedure with excellent functional outcomes and low rates of complication and reoperation. [35] (10.1016/j.asmr.2021.01.014)
  • [L1] On the basis of the included cadaveric studies, rotator cuff tendons repaired via the knotted TOE technique display superior time-zero biomechanical properties, including greater ultimate load to failure, compared with rotator cuffs repaired via the knotless TOE technique. [36] (10.1016/j.arthro.2021.09.017)
  • [L1] However, there was conflicting evidence supporting knotless or knotted anchors in the biomechanical studies, though operative times may be reduced with the use of knotless anchors. [37] (10.1016/j.arthro.2020.11.056)
  • [L3] All-suture anchors with various deployment configurations produced different tunnel enlargements, with the diameter more pronounced at the inferior region of the anterior glenoid. [38] (10.1177/23259671251319533)
  • [L4] Moreover, this technique was not associated with postoperative arthritis and shoulder stiffness, including ER deficit, which was not affected by the position of the anchor on the glenoid face for a minimum 2-year follow-up. [39] (10.1177/03635465231221723)
  • [L1] There was no biomechanically significant difference between the simple, horizontal mattress, and double-row methods in Bankart repair. [40] (10.1186/s12891-023-06864-2)
  • [L4] Suture anchors have revolutionized upper limb surgery by enabling arthroscopic soft tissue-to-bone repair, with designs and materials evolving to minimize complications. [41] (10.1016/j.hcl.2012.08.002)
  • [L4] Among patients with follow-up data, 14% underwent subsequent ipsilateral shoulder procedures. [42] (10.1177/23259671251338802)
  • [L4] Available biomechanical studies are in favour of double-row repair, and radiographic studies suggest a beneficial effect of double-row reconstruction on structural integrity of the reattached tendon or reduced recurrent defect rates. [43] (10.1007/s00167-010-1245-7)
  • [L5] Advancements in suture anchor design and technology have fostered the transition from open to arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, with current suture-bridging constructs surpassing the biomechanical strength of transosseous repairs and showing impressive healing rates. [44] (10.1016/j.arthro.2013.05.011)
  • [L3] Bioabsorbable PLDLA anchor material led to significantly more SLAP repair failures and reoperations compared with nonabsorbable suture anchors. [45] (10.1016/j.arthro.2011.06.021)
  • [L1] The only observed advantage of TOA was a statistically superior improvement in abduction range of motion. [46] (10.1186/s12891-026-09557-8)
  • [L4] The presence of a massive rotator cuff tear significantly decreased the likelihood of the surgeon utilizing a double row knotless construct. [47] (10.1016/j.jor.2018.01.037)
  • [L3] Although MRI data suggest improved healing rates in SR repairs in the entire patient population, DR repair showed improved radiographic healing when similar-sized tears were compared. [48] (10.1016/j.arthro.2010.03.013)
  • [L3] Patients who undergo aRCR using all-suture medial row anchors have increased abduction and strength postoperatively, as well as lower pain scores compared to traditional suture anchors during a transosseous equivalent repair. [49] (10.1177/2325967126s00050)
  • [L3] However, radiographic healing is significantly improved in the double row repairs. [50] (10.1016/j.arthro.2009.04.005)
  • [L4] Use of these anchors should be reconsidered because of possible interference with revision surgery. [51] (10.1177/0363546513517538)
  • [L4] The data support that the security of this particular 1.8-mm all-suture anchor at the time of implantation is exceptionally reliable, and there is no demonstrable learning curve in employing the product in the hands of an experienced surgeon. [52] (10.1016/j.arthro.2017.09.049)

See Also

References

[1] Clinical and radiological outcome of all-suture anchors in shoulder and elbow surgery. Shoulder & Elbow. 2022. DOI: 10.1177/17585732221127433

[2] The Clinical and Biomechanical Performance of All‐Suture Anchors: A Systematic Review. Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation. 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.asmr.2020.02.007

[3] Bioabsorbable Anchors in Glenohumeral Shoulder Surgery. Arthroscopy. 2009. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2008.08.018

[4] Predictors of outcomes after arthroscopic transosseous equivalent rotator cuff repair in 155 cases: a propensity score weighted analysis of knotted and knotless self-reinforcing repair techniques at a minimum of 2 years. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery. 2017. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-017-2750-7

[5] “Postage Stamp” Fractures: A Systematic Review of Patient and Suture Anchor Profiles Causing Anterior Glenoid Rim Fractures After Bankart Repair. Arthroscopy. 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2019.02.047

[6] The Incidence of Early Metallic Suture Anchor Pullout After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair. Arthroscopy. 2010. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2009.08.015

[7] Suture Anchors and Tacks for Shoulder Surgery, Part 1. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2005. DOI: 10.1177/0363546505282621

[8] Suture Anchors and Tacks for Shoulder Surgery, Part II. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2006. DOI: 10.1177/0363546505284240

[9] Long-term clinical outcome of arthroscopic Bankart repair with suture anchors. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.09.027

[10] Novel and reproducible technique coping with intraoperative anchor pullout during arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2020. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-020-05935-4

[11] The Use of Anchors in Shoulder Surgery: A Shift From Metallic to Bioabsorbable Anchors. Arthroscopy. 2007. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2007.05.011

[12] Outcomes of Double-Row Rotator Cuff Repair Using a Novel All-Suture Soft Anchor Medial Row. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2023. DOI: 10.1177/23259671231192134

[13] Complications and Return to Activity After Arthroscopic Repair of Isolated Type II SLAP Lesions: A Systematic Review Comparing Knotted Versus Knotless Suture Anchors. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2020. DOI: 10.1177/2325967120911361

[14] No functional differences in anatomic reconstruction with one vs. two suture anchors after non-simultaneous bilateral distal biceps brachii tendon rupture: a case report and review of the literature. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2020. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-020-03304-3

[15] Biomechanical Studies for Glenoid Based Labral Repairs With Suture Anchors Do Not Use Consistent Testing Methods: A Critical Systematic Review. Arthroscopy. 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2021.08.035

[16] Does the Literature Support Double‐Row Suture Anchor Fixation for Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair? A Systematic Review Comparing Double‐Row and Single‐Row Suture Anchor Configuration. Arthroscopy. 2009. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2009.02.005

[17] Adverse Events Associated With Biodegradable Lactide‐Containing Suture Anchors. Arthroscopy. 2014. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2014.02.011

[18] Poster 144: Decreased Failure Rate Following Shoulder Stabilization Procedures in the Military With Use of Suture Tape. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2024. DOI: 10.1177/2325967124s00113

[19] Radiolucent rings around bioabsorbable anchors after rotator cuff repair are not associated with clinical outcomes. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery. 2017. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-017-2772-1

[20] Complications of Bioabsorbable Suture Anchors in the Shoulder. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2011. DOI: 10.1177/0363546511417573

[21] Predictors of outcomes following double-row rotator cuff repair: an assessment of all-suture or solid medial row anchor utilization at a single high-volume institution. JSES Reviews, Reports, and Techniques. 2026. DOI: 10.1016/j.xrrt.2025.100639

[22] Rotator cuff repairs with all‐suture tape anchors: no difference in outcomes between with or without all‐suture tape anchors. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2023. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-023-07454-4

[23] No Difference in Recurrent Instability Between Knotted and Knotless Repair Techniques in Arthroscopic Treatment of Isolated Posterior Labral Tears: A Systematic Review. Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation. 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j.asmr.2023.100837

[24] Biomechanical Analysis of All-Suture Anchor Fixation for Rotator Cuff Repair. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2018. DOI: 10.1177/2325967118s00175

[25] Extensor tendon rupture and preoperative mri confirmations of suture anchor prolapse: a case report and literature review. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2024. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-024-07476-0

[26] Double-row vs single-row rotator cuff repair: A review of the biomechanical evidence. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2009. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2009.07.002

[27] Stump classification was correlated with retear in the suture‐bridge and double‐row repair techniques for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2021. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-020-06415-5

[28] Factors associated with clinical and structural outcomes after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with a suture bridge technique in medium, large, and massive tears. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2014. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.02.021

[29] A modified arthroscopic en masse suture bridge repair is effective for delaminated rotator cuff tears. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2024. DOI: 10.1002/ksa.12412

[30] Early Structural and Functional Outcomes for Arthroscopic Double-Row Transosseous-Equivalent Rotator Cuff Repair. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2011. DOI: 10.1177/0363546510397725

[31] Clinical Evidence Shows No Difference Between Single‐ and Double‐Row Repair for Rotator Cuff Tears. Arthroscopy. 2007. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2007.01.031

[32] A Meta-Analysis of Biomechanical Studies for Suture Button Pullout Versus Suture Anchor Repair of Flexor Digitorum Profundus Avulsions. HAND. 2022. DOI: 10.1177/15589447221126760

[33] Retear Rates After Arthroscopic Single‐Row, Double‐Row, and Suture Bridge Rotator Cuff Repair at a Minimum of 1 Year of Imaging Follow‐up: A Systematic Review. Arthroscopy. 2015. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2015.06.004

[34] Outcomes of arthroscopic single-row repair alone vs. repair with human dermal allograft patch augmentation in patients with large to massive, posterosuperior rotator cuff tears: a retrospective comparative study. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2023.08.002

[35] Excellent Functional Outcomes and Low Complication Rates Following Knotless Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Systematic Review of Clinical and Biomechanical Studies. Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation. 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.asmr.2021.01.014

[36] Knotted Transosseous‐Equivalent Technique for Rotator Cuff Repair Shows Superior Biomechanical Properties Compared With a Knotless Technique: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis. Arthroscopy. 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2021.09.017

[37] Knotted Versus Knotless Anchors for Labral Repair in the Shoulder: A Systematic Review. Arthroscopy. 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2020.11.056

[38] All-Suture Anchor Deployment Configurations in Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Comparative Analysis of Clinical and Radiological Outcomes. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2025. DOI: 10.1177/23259671251319533

[39] Knotless Bioabsorbable Anchors Placed on the Glenoid Face for Arthroscopic Bankart Repair. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2024. DOI: 10.1177/03635465231221723

[40] No difference in biomechanical properties of simple, horizontal mattress, and double row repair in Bankart repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of biomechanical studies. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2023. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-023-06864-2

[41] Use of Suture Anchors and New Suture Materials in the Upper Extremity. Hand Clinics. 2012. DOI: 10.1016/j.hcl.2012.08.002

[42] Outcomes of Glenoid Labral Repair Using All-Suture Anchors. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2025. DOI: 10.1177/23259671251338802

[43] Single versus double‐row repair of the rotator cuff. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2010. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-010-1245-7

[44] The Evolution of Suture Anchors in Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair. Arthroscopy. 2013. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2013.05.011

[45] Poly‐L/D‐Lactic Acid Anchors Are Associated With Reoperation and Failure of SLAP Repairs. Arthroscopy. 2011. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2011.06.021

[46] Arthroscopic transosseous anchorless versus suture anchor repair for rotator cuff tears: a meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2026. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-026-09557-8

[47] Arthroscopic knotless rotator cuff repair: Factors associated with construct selection and recent trends from a manual review of 1617 cases. Journal of Orthopaedics. 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.jor.2018.01.037

[48] Comparative Analysis of Single‐Row Versus Double‐Row Repair of Rotator Cuff Tears. Arthroscopy. 2010. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2010.03.013

[49] Outcomes Following Usage of All Suture Anchors for Rotator Cuff Repair. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2026. DOI: 10.1177/2325967126s00050

[50] Functional Outcomes and Radiographic Appearance of Single versus Double Row Rotator Cuff Repair (SS‐04). Arthroscopy. 2009. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2009.04.005

[51] Postoperative Imaging of Bioabsorbable Anchors in Rotator Cuff Repair. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2014. DOI: 10.1177/0363546513517538

[52] Acetabular All‐Suture Anchor for Labral Repair: Incidence of Intraoperative Failure due to Pullout. Arthroscopy. 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.09.049

Creative Commons BY-NC 4.0

CC Creative Commons licence
BY Attribution — you must credit the source
NC NonCommercial — not for commercial use

Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International

Creative Commons Corporation ("Creative Commons") is not a law firm and does not provide legal services or legal advice. Distribution of Creative Commons public licenses does not create a lawyer-client or other relationship. Creative Commons makes its licenses and related information available on an "as-is" basis. Creative Commons gives no warranties regarding its licenses, any material licensed under their terms and conditions, or any related information. Creative Commons disclaims all liability for damages resulting from their use to the fullest extent possible.

Using Creative Commons Public Licenses

Creative Commons public licenses provide a standard set of terms and conditions that creators and other rights holders may use to share original works of authorship and other material subject to copyright and certain other rights specified in the public license below. The following considerations are for informational purposes only, are not exhaustive, and do not form part of our licenses.

Considerations for licensors: Our public licenses are intended for use by those authorized to give the public permission to use material in ways otherwise restricted by copyright and certain other rights. Our licenses are irrevocable. Licensors should read and understand the terms and conditions of the license they choose before applying it. Licensors should also secure all rights necessary before applying our licenses so that the public can reuse the material as expected. Licensors should clearly mark any material not subject to the license. This includes other CC- licensed material, or material used under an exception or limitation to copyright. More considerations for licensors: wiki.creativecommons.org/Considerations_for_licensors

Considerations for the public: By using one of our public licenses, a licensor grants the public permission to use the licensed material under specified terms and conditions. If the licensor's permission is not necessary for any reason--for example, because of any applicable exception or limitation to copyright--then that use is not regulated by the license. Our licenses grant only permissions under copyright and certain other rights that a licensor has authority to grant. Use of the licensed material may still be restricted for other reasons, including because others have copyright or other rights in the material. A licensor may make special requests, such as asking that all changes be marked or described. Although not required by our licenses, you are encouraged to respect those requests where reasonable. More considerations for the public: wiki.creativecommons.org/Considerations_for_licensees

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License

By exercising the Licensed Rights (defined below), You accept and agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License ("Public License"). To the extent this Public License may be interpreted as a contract, You are granted the Licensed Rights in consideration of Your acceptance of these terms and conditions, and the Licensor grants You such rights in consideration of benefits the Licensor receives from making the Licensed Material available under these terms and conditions.

Section 1 -- Definitions.

a. Adapted Material means material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights that is derived from or based upon the Licensed Material and in which the Licensed Material is translated, altered, arranged, transformed, or otherwise modified in a manner requiring permission under the Copyright and Similar Rights held by the Licensor. For purposes of this Public License, where the Licensed Material is a musical work, performance, or sound recording, Adapted Material is always produced where the Licensed Material is synched in timed relation with a moving image.

b. Adapter's License means the license You apply to Your Copyright and Similar Rights in Your contributions to Adapted Material in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Public License.

c. Copyright and Similar Rights means copyright and/or similar rights closely related to copyright including, without limitation, performance, broadcast, sound recording, and Sui Generis Database Rights, without regard to how the rights are labeled or categorized. For purposes of this Public License, the rights specified in Section 2(b)(1)-(2) are not Copyright and Similar Rights.

d. Effective Technological Measures means those measures that, in the absence of proper authority, may not be circumvented under laws fulfilling obligations under Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty adopted on December 20, 1996, and/or similar international agreements.

e. Exceptions and Limitations means fair use, fair dealing, and/or any other exception or limitation to Copyright and Similar Rights that applies to Your use of the Licensed Material.

f. Licensed Material means the artistic or literary work, database, or other material to which the Licensor applied this Public License.

g. Licensed Rights means the rights granted to You subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, which are limited to all Copyright and Similar Rights that apply to Your use of the Licensed Material and that the Licensor has authority to license.

h. Licensor means the individual(s) or entity(ies) granting rights under this Public License.

i. NonCommercial means not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation. For purposes of this Public License, the exchange of the Licensed Material for other material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights by digital file-sharing or similar means is NonCommercial provided there is no payment of monetary compensation in connection with the exchange.

j. Share means to provide material to the public by any means or process that requires permission under the Licensed Rights, such as reproduction, public display, public performance, distribution, dissemination, communication, or importation, and to make material available to the public including in ways that members of the public may access the material from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.

k. Sui Generis Database Rights means rights other than copyright resulting from Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, as amended and/or succeeded, as well as other essentially equivalent rights anywhere in the world.

l. You means the individual or entity exercising the Licensed Rights under this Public License. Your has a corresponding meaning.

Section 2 -- Scope.

a. License grant.

1. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to:

a. reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part, for NonCommercial purposes only; and

b. produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material for NonCommercial purposes only.

2. Exceptions and Limitations. For the avoidance of doubt, where Exceptions and Limitations apply to Your use, this Public License does not apply, and You do not need to comply with its terms and conditions.

3. Term. The term of this Public License is specified in Section 6(a).

4. Media and formats; technical modifications allowed. The Licensor authorizes You to exercise the Licensed Rights in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter created, and to make technical modifications necessary to do so. The Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any right or authority to forbid You from making technical modifications necessary to exercise the Licensed Rights, including technical modifications necessary to circumvent Effective Technological Measures. For purposes of this Public License, simply making modifications authorized by this Section 2(a) (4) never produces Adapted Material.

5. Downstream recipients.

a. Offer from the Licensor -- Licensed Material. Every recipient of the Licensed Material automatically receives an offer from the Licensor to exercise the Licensed Rights under the terms and conditions of this Public License.

b. No downstream restrictions. You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material.

6. No endorsement. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or may be construed as permission to assert or imply that You are, or that Your use of the Licensed Material is, connected with, or sponsored, endorsed, or granted official status by, the Licensor or others designated to receive attribution as provided in Section 3(a)(1)(A)(i).

b. Other rights.

1. Moral rights, such as the right of integrity, are not licensed under this Public License, nor are publicity, privacy, and/or other similar personality rights; however, to the extent possible, the Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any such rights held by the Licensor to the limited extent necessary to allow You to exercise the Licensed Rights, but not otherwise.

2. Patent and trademark rights are not licensed under this Public License.

3. To the extent possible, the Licensor waives any right to collect royalties from You for the exercise of the Licensed Rights, whether directly or through a collecting society under any voluntary or waivable statutory or compulsory licensing scheme. In all other cases the Licensor expressly reserves any right to collect such royalties, including when the Licensed Material is used other than for NonCommercial purposes.

Section 3 -- License Conditions.

Your exercise of the Licensed Rights is expressly made subject to the following conditions.

a. Attribution.

1. If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must:

a. retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material:

i. identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any others designated to receive attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor (including by pseudonym if designated);

ii. a copyright notice;

iii. a notice that refers to this Public License;

iv. a notice that refers to the disclaimer of warranties;

v. a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the extent reasonably practicable;

b. indicate if You modified the Licensed Material and retain an indication of any previous modifications; and

c. indicate the Licensed Material is licensed under this Public License, and include the text of, or the URI or hyperlink to, this Public License.

2. You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information.

3. If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any of the information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) to the extent reasonably practicable.

4. If You Share Adapted Material You produce, the Adapter's License You apply must not prevent recipients of the Adapted Material from complying with this Public License.

Section 4 -- Sui Generis Database Rights.

Where the Licensed Rights include Sui Generis Database Rights that apply to Your use of the Licensed Material:

a. for the avoidance of doubt, Section 2(a)(1) grants You the right to extract, reuse, reproduce, and Share all or a substantial portion of the contents of the database for NonCommercial purposes only;

b. if You include all or a substantial portion of the database contents in a database in which You have Sui Generis Database Rights, then the database in which You have Sui Generis Database Rights (but not its individual contents) is Adapted Material; and

c. You must comply with the conditions in Section 3(a) if You Share all or a substantial portion of the contents of the database.

For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 4 supplements and does not replace Your obligations under this Public License where the Licensed Rights include other Copyright and Similar Rights.

Section 5 -- Disclaimer of Warranties and Limitation of Liability.

a. UNLESS OTHERWISE SEPARATELY UNDERTAKEN BY THE LICENSOR, TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, THE LICENSOR OFFERS THE LICENSED MATERIAL AS-IS AND AS-AVAILABLE, AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE LICENSED MATERIAL, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY, OR OTHER. THIS INCLUDES, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, ABSENCE OF LATENT OR OTHER DEFECTS, ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER OR NOT KNOWN OR DISCOVERABLE. WHERE DISCLAIMERS OF WARRANTIES ARE NOT ALLOWED IN FULL OR IN PART, THIS DISCLAIMER MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.

b. TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, IN NO EVENT WILL THE LICENSOR BE LIABLE TO YOU ON ANY LEGAL THEORY (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, NEGLIGENCE) OR OTHERWISE FOR ANY DIRECT, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE, EXEMPLARY, OR OTHER LOSSES, COSTS, EXPENSES, OR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THIS PUBLIC LICENSE OR USE OF THE LICENSED MATERIAL, EVEN IF THE LICENSOR HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH LOSSES, COSTS, EXPENSES, OR DAMAGES. WHERE A LIMITATION OF LIABILITY IS NOT ALLOWED IN FULL OR IN PART, THIS LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.

c. The disclaimer of warranties and limitation of liability provided above shall be interpreted in a manner that, to the extent possible, most closely approximates an absolute disclaimer and waiver of all liability.

Section 6 -- Term and Termination.

a. This Public License applies for the term of the Copyright and Similar Rights licensed here. However, if You fail to comply with this Public License, then Your rights under this Public License terminate automatically.

b. Where Your right to use the Licensed Material has terminated under Section 6(a), it reinstates:

1. automatically as of the date the violation is cured, provided it is cured within 30 days of Your discovery of the violation; or

2. upon express reinstatement by the Licensor.

For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 6(b) does not affect any right the Licensor may have to seek remedies for Your violations of this Public License.

c. For the avoidance of doubt, the Licensor may also offer the Licensed Material under separate terms or conditions or stop distributing the Licensed Material at any time; however, doing so will not terminate this Public License.

d. Sections 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 survive termination of this Public License.

Section 7 -- Other Terms and Conditions.

a. The Licensor shall not be bound by any additional or different terms or conditions communicated by You unless expressly agreed.

b. Any arrangements, understandings, or agreements regarding the Licensed Material not stated herein are separate from and independent of the terms and conditions of this Public License.

Section 8 -- Interpretation.

a. For the avoidance of doubt, this Public License does not, and shall not be interpreted to, reduce, limit, restrict, or impose conditions on any use of the Licensed Material that could lawfully be made without permission under this Public License.

b. To the extent possible, if any provision of this Public License is deemed unenforceable, it shall be automatically reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make it enforceable. If the provision cannot be reformed, it shall be severed from this Public License without affecting the enforceability of the remaining terms and conditions.

c. No term or condition of this Public License will be waived and no failure to comply consented to unless expressly agreed to by the Licensor.

d. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or may be interpreted as a limitation upon, or waiver of, any privileges and immunities that apply to the Licensor or You, including from the legal processes of any jurisdiction or authority.

Creative Commons is not a party to its public licenses. Notwithstanding, Creative Commons may elect to apply one of its public licenses to material it publishes and in those instances will be considered the “Licensor.” The text of the Creative Commons public licenses is dedicated to the public domain under the CC0 Public Domain Dedication. Except for the limited purpose of indicating that material is shared under a Creative Commons public license or as otherwise permitted by the Creative Commons policies published at creativecommons.org/policies, Creative Commons does not authorize the use of the trademark "Creative Commons" or any other trademark or logo of Creative Commons without its prior written consent including, without limitation, in connection with any unauthorized modifications to any of its public licenses or any other arrangements, understandings, or agreements concerning use of licensed material. For the avoidance of doubt, this paragraph does not form part of the public licenses.

Creative Commons may be contacted at creativecommons.org.