2009
DOI: 10.1007/s11552-009-9230-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Index Radial Collateral Ligament Repair with Titanium Mini-Suture Anchor: Osteolysis Complication of an Underreported Injury

Abstract: We are reporting on a case of an index radial collateral ligament tear repaired with a titanium Mitek bone suture anchor. The development of cystic radiographic changes and increased pain and weakness led to suture anchor removal at 10 months post-repair. Periprosthetic osteolysis due to titanium-induced osteoclastogenesis and micromotion was suspected to be the cause. This case report provides a dual focus by stressing the importance of the diagnosis and treatment of this underreported ligament tear and highl… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
7
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
1
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition to the cost of the implants, another drawback to using the interference screw is the risk of foreign body reaction such as osteolysis, which has been previously described with suture anchors used in hand surgery. (5,20) Nonetheless, these biomechanical results substantiate our clinical experience that the interference screw technique provides an optimal combination of stability and flexion at the index MP joint.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 77%
“…In addition to the cost of the implants, another drawback to using the interference screw is the risk of foreign body reaction such as osteolysis, which has been previously described with suture anchors used in hand surgery. (5,20) Nonetheless, these biomechanical results substantiate our clinical experience that the interference screw technique provides an optimal combination of stability and flexion at the index MP joint.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 77%
“…However, the presence of foreign body giant cells and granulomas found about these devices has led some to the belief that the affected patients' bodies are “rejecting” these implants. Recent case reports associating Artelon® spacers with similar foreign body reactions have implied that some patients were “rejecting” the Artelon® material [4, 6, 15, 17, 21, 26]. Careful review of each of these reports reveals other possible explanations for the “foreign body reactions seen” other than the body rejecting the implant, such as complete decortication of the first metacarpal leading to possible screw loosening, possible screw penetration into the joint, use of resorbable bone anchors, use of titanium screws for fixation and placement of the Artelon® CMC Spacer into the STT joint—an “off label” use.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…7 Complications related to suture anchors have been reported: anchor migration, anchor dislodgment, synovitis caused by absorbable material, osteolysis, and skin ulcer caused by foreign body reaction to the anchor. [3][4][5] In our case, we suspected a multistep mechanism of pathology: First, the tendinous mallet finger was treated by a suture anchor; second, the string of suture anchor protruded from the dorsal skin at the DIP joint and was removed; third, after removal of the string, the terminal tendon accompanying the suture knot migrated proximally; and fourth, the remaining suture knot caused the formation of a stitch abscess and skin ulcer. It was a specific point that the skin ulcer was at a site different from the original operative site.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Complications related to suture anchors have been reported, but, to our best knowledge, skin ulcer formation apart from the surgical site has not been reported in relation to the use of an anchor. [3][4][5] We report the case of a skin ulcer that developed at the dorsal middle phalanx of a finger that had been surgically treated 2 years before for tendinous mallet finger with suture anchors. The skin reconstruction entailed the use of the dorsal metacarpal artery in a perforator flap.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%