Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 106-B, Issue 9 | Pages 978 - 985
1 Sep 2024
Savoie III FH Delvadia BP Tate JP Winter JE Williams GH Sherman WF O’Brien MJ

Rotator cuff tears are common in middle-aged and elderly patients. Despite advances in the surgical repair of rotator cuff tears, the rates of recurrent tear remain high. This may be due to the complexity of the tendons of the rotator cuff, which contributes to an inherently hostile healing environment. During the past 20 years, there has been an increased interest in the use of biologics to complement the healing environment in the shoulder, in order to improve rotator cuff healing and reduce the rate of recurrent tears. The aim of this review is to provide a summary of the current evidence for the use of forms of biological augmentation when repairing rotator cuff tears.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(9):978–985.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 1 | Pages 83 - 88
1 Jan 2015
Kocsis G McCulloch TA Thyagarajan D Wallace WA

The LockDown device (previously called Surgilig) is a braided polyester mesh which is mostly used to reconstruct the dislocated acromioclavicular joint. More than 11 000 have been implanted worldwide. Little is known about the tissue reaction to the device nor to its wear products when implanted in an extra-articular site in humans. This is of importance as an adverse immunological reaction could result in osteolysis or damage to the local tissues, thereby affecting the longevity of the implant.

We analysed the histology of five LockDown implants retrieved from five patients over the last seven years by one of the senior authors. Routine analysis was carried out in all five cases and immunohistochemistry in one.

The LockDown device acts as a scaffold for connective tissue which forms an investing fibrous pseudoligament. The immunological response at the histological level seems favourable with a limited histiocytic and giant cell response to micron-sized wear particles. The connective tissue envelope around the implant is less organised than a native ligament.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:83–8.