EnFix Biological Scaffold¶
Overview¶
Rotator cuff repair is a high-volume procedure, with approximately 500,000 surgeries performed annually in the USA [1]. Despite this volume, failure rates vary significantly based on tear size and patient factors, ranging from 20% to 94% [1]. Specifically, re-tear rates are reported as 22 +/- 7% for small-to-medium tears (1-3 cm), 46 +/- 21% for large tears (3-5 cm), and 58 +/- 12% for massive tears involving two or more tendons [1]. Longo et al. meta-analysis further confirms radiographic re-tear rates of 15-21% across time points from 3 months to beyond 24 months [1]. The economic impact is substantial, with the cost of failed rotator cuff surgery in the USA estimated at over $430 million in 2022 [1].
The persistent clinical problem of lack of healing at the tendon-bone interface is termed "enthesis failure syndrome" [3]. Most existing augmentation products function as overlay (onlay) patches that reinforce the tendon, whereas EnFix implants (Tetrous Inc.) target healing at the enthesis where failure actually occurs [3]. EnFix represents the first-to-market, procedure-specific implant utilizing patented Demineralized Bone Fiber (DBF) technology [1]. DBF is a next-generation form of demineralized bone matrix (DBM) that employs proprietary water-assisted injection molding (WAIM) and FormLok processes to yield shaped, osteoinductive allograft implants [1]. The concept is termed "inlay" augmentation, placing the scaffold between bone and tendon at the footprint rather than on top of the tendon [8][9].
EnFix products are 100% cortical bone allogenic tissue products with no additives or excipients, conforming to FDA HCT/P regulations under 21 CFR Part 1271 and Section 361 of the PHS Act [1]. This approach is underpinned by the foundational biology established by Marshall Urist's 1965 discovery of bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) from demineralized bone matrix [1]. Commercially, EnFix was launched in a controlled fashion in July 2023 with 7 surgeons; as of May 2025, 35 surgeons have completed over 700 cases with over 1,500 implants deployed [1]. A multi-center prospective clinical study with 6 surgeons at 6 centers (Australia, New Zealand, USA) was initiated in May 2025 [1].
Anatomy & Pathophysiology¶
Enthesis Structure and Function¶
The native tendon-bone interface (enthesis) features a fibrocartilage transitional region with gradations in cell phenotype, matrix composition, tissue organization, and mechanical properties [1][2]. This four-zone structure—comprising bone, mineralized fibrocartilage, unmineralized fibrocartilage, and tendon—facilitates effective load transfer between materials of differing stiffness by reducing stress concentrations at the interface [1][2].
Healing Limitations and Failure Patterns¶
The enthesis has poor healing potential; after repair, biomechanically inferior fibrovascular scar tissue typically forms rather than native fibrocartilaginous tissue [1][2][8]. Incomplete healing and gap formation commonly occur at the enthesis, increasing re-tear risk; most failures occur within the initial 6-26 weeks after arthroscopic repair (mean 19.2 weeks) [2]. Healing of rotator cuff tendon repair is dependent on bone ingrowth into the repaired tendon; a fibrovascular interface tissue forms first, followed by gradual bone ingrowth and eventual re-establishment of collagen fiber continuity [4]. In a sheep model, a gap consistently formed between the end of the repaired tendon and bone, with reparative scar tissue and new bone spanning the gap [4].
Biological Scaffold Mechanisms¶
DBM/DBF promotes healing through both osteoconductive (providing a scaffold for cell migration and attachment) and osteoinductive (containing BMPs that stimulate mesenchymal stem cell differentiation into osteoblasts and chondrocytes) properties [2]. DBM contains growth factors including BMP-2 through BMP-7, transforming growth factor-beta, fibroblast growth factor, and platelet-derived growth factor [1][4][7]. The osteoinductive capacity of DBM triggers endochondral ossification, recapitulating embryonic development of bone-to-tendon attachment [1][2].
EnFix Design and Clinical Context¶
Tetrous' patented process demineralizes bone first, then cleaves fibers along the bone's long axis, preserving the natural nanotopography of collagen fibrils that conventional acid-treated DBM processing destroys [1][3]. EnFix implants have a porosity of 39% with average pore size of 160 microns, enabling cellular transport; competitor electrospun products have pore sizes less than 10 microns, too small for cellular transport [1]. The cannulated design of EnFix allows blood and bone marrow elements from subchondral bone to flow up into the healing site, providing a "crimson duvet" effect via the DBF fibers [1]. Bone marrow aspirate and microfracture techniques (the original "crimson duvet" described by Snyder) have failed to show benefit in randomized studies: Hong et al. showed no benefit for bone marrow stimulation, and Cole et al. showed bone marrow aspirate concentrate failed to improve outcomes [1]. A 2017 NIH/NIAMS roundtable on Innovative Treatments for Enthesis Repair highlighted enthesis repair as a critical unmet need [1].
Classification¶
EnFix Product Types¶
EnFix RC: Designed for use with suture anchors (sizes 4.5mm-6.5mm). The device features a "top hat" shape with an 8.5mm diameter top and a 13mm long peg portion. It is inserted into the awl hole used for suture anchor insertion and held in place by the anchor [1][3]. - TET-RC-45: For use with suture anchors 4.5mm to 5.5mm [3]. - TET-RC-55: For use with suture anchors larger than 5.5mm [3].
EnFix TAC-O: Features an 8.5mm round top. It is placed between medial and lateral anchor rows in a double-row repair or independently of anchors. The device is compatible with all-suture anchors [1][3].
EnFix TAC-T: Features a 10mm x 4mm rectangular top. It is placed between anchor rows. This design allows surgeon choice of format based on tear size and anatomy [1][3].
Inlay vs Onlay Augmentation¶
Onlay scaffolds: Placed on top of the tendon. They do not address the bone-tendon interface, have shown mixed clinical results, and fail to recreate the native enthesis [1][8][9].
Inlay scaffolds: Positioned between tendon and bone at the footprint. Ten of 13 preclinical studies in a systematic review showed positive outcomes for inlay positioning [8]. Demineralized bone matrix (DBM)/demineralized cortical bone was the most commonly investigated inlay scaffold (6 of 13 studies), followed by synthetic scaffolds and collagen scaffolds [8].
Tear Types Suited for Augmentation¶
Indications: EnFix usage is indicated for large to massive rotator cuff tears, tears with poor tendon quality, and revision surgeries [2].
Other Applications: EnFix has also been used in proximal/distal biceps tenodesis, insertional Achilles tendinopathy, gluteus medius and proximal hamstring reattachment, lateral epicondyle repair, and subscapularis repair during total shoulder arthroplasty [1].
Clinical Presentation¶
Patient factors increasing the risk of re-tear include age, tear size, fatty infiltration (Goutallier classification), tendon quality, osteoporosis, diabetes, and smoking status [2]. Patients older than 70 years and those with larger, retracted tears have higher rates of failure and are candidates for biologic augmentation [10]. Retear rate after repair of massive, retracted rotator cuff tears can be as high as 94% [2].
In the Gupta clinical study, the majority of patients had at least two-tendon tears with Patte 2-3 retraction and low-grade fatty infiltration (Goutallier 0-2) [2]. Functional shoulder strength is significantly better in patients with a healed tendon; tear progression holds high risk for significant dysfunction and pain [5].
Investigations¶
MRI: Pre-operative MRI arthrogram with 3.0-T is used to assess degree of tendon retraction (Patte classification), severity of fatty infiltration (Goutallier classification), and remaining tendon stump length [2]. Tendon retraction classified using Patte system: A (minimal retraction), B (retraction to humeral head), C (retraction to glenoid) [2][6]. Fatty infiltration classified using Goutallier system modified by Fuchs et al., simplified to low-grade (0-2) and high-grade (3-4) [2]. Tendon thickness is measured on T2-weighted coronal oblique sequences, perpendicular to the thickest portion of the tendon at the footprint near the repair anchors [2].
Post-operative non-contrast MRI at 6 months assesses tendon healing and quality using the Sugaya classification (Types I-V) [2]. At 6-month post-operative MRI in an EnFix-augmented patient, excellent healing of the supraspinatus tendon repair was demonstrated with clear tendon-to-bone integration, with morphology similar to a native tendon-bone interface [1]. MRI showed nearly no visible evidence of the EnFix RC implant such as marrow edema, cystic change, or adverse localized soft tissue reaction, with successful integration into surrounding bone [1].
Treatment¶
Operative¶
Surgical Approach / Technique: The EnFix biological scaffold can be integrated into double-row, single-row, or anchor-augmented rotator cuff repairs. For a double-row repair with the EnFix TAC, the patient is positioned in the beach-chair with 30 degrees of hip flexion; standard posterior viewing, anterior interval, lateral, and accessory anterolateral portals are established [9]. Diagnostic arthroscopy is performed, followed by subacromial bursectomy, decompression, debridement of torn tendon edges, and decortication of the greater tuberosity footprint [9]. Two double-loaded medial-row 2.6mm all-suture anchors are placed 8-10mm apart, with all 8 sutures passed through the rotator cuff in a mattress configuration [9]. Before lateral-row anchoring, the EnFix TAC implant is placed between the bone and the inferior aspect of the repaired tendon at the footprint [9]. An awl creates a pilot hole in the center of the tuberosity, a punch creates a flush circular bone cutout, and the implant is tapped into position flush with the surrounding bone [9]. The previously passed mattress sutures are brought down to the lateral row in an over-the-top fashion, and two lateral-row 4.75mm biocomposite anchors secure the transosseous-equivalent double-row repair [9]. This technique adds little-to-no increased surgical time, and scaffold placement is similar to anchor deployment [9].
For a single-row repair with EnFix, the patient is positioned in the lateral decubitus position with standard posterior, anterior, and lateral portals established [10]. A trough is created medially with an arthroscopic burr at the footprint of the torn tendon where the tendon will lie on repair [10]. Sutures are passed in a mattress configuration and shuttled anteriorly [10]. A cutting awl with a circular blade creates a 2mm-deep circle in the trough for implant placement, which also vents the proximal humerus to release marrow elements [10]. One or two EnFix implants are placed depending on tear size and tapped gently into position [10]. A single-row knotless repair is completed with double- or triple-loaded anchors placed lateral to the trough and implants [10]. This technique re-creates the enthesis with tendon contacting decorticated bone both inferior and lateral to the tendon edge [10].
When using EnFix RC with an anchor, the implant is placed into the awl hole created for the suture anchor and held in place using the suture anchor [1][3]. The implant is tapered with four ribs designed to resist rotation during suture anchor insertion [1]. Use of EnFix RC does not require the surgeon to change their surgical technique and adds less than 2 minutes to surgery time [1]. The peg portion enhances fixation of the suture anchor into bone, analogous to TheraCell's Fibrant pedicle screw fixation enhancement [1].
In the Gupta technique for augmentation, indications include large to massive cuff tears, poor tendon quality, and revision surgeries [2]. Surgery is performed in the beach-chair position under combined general anaesthetic and interscalene nerve block [2]. After adequate releases and muscle slide/advancement with suprascapular nerve release for massive retracted tears to ensure tension-free repair, EnFix RC is inserted onto the footprint adjacent to planned anchor placement near the medial row or between medial and lateral rows [2]. A standard double-row repair is performed using 5.5mm PEEK Quattro X medial row anchors and 5.5mm PEEK Quattro Link Knotless lateral row anchors (Zimmer Biomet) [2]. For delaminated tears, separate repair of deep and superficial layers is performed using the double layer Lasso loop technique [2].
Augmentation Strategy: In a systematic review, 10 of 13 preclinical studies showed qualitative or quantitative differences in favor of inlay scaffold augmentation over controls [8]. DBM/DCB inlay studies reported that 4 of 6 showed enhanced histology, biomechanical features, and bone mineral density at the repaired enthesis vs controls [8]. Two clinical studies of inlay scaffolds (non-DBM) reported lower failure rates (9% and 5.8% at the tendon-bone interface) than the established onlay literature (11.8%) [8]. Although onlay grafts reinforce the tendon, they do not recreate or enhance the native enthesis at the bone-tendon interface where most repairs fail [8][9].
Complications¶
Re-tear Rates¶
Infection (PJI): No re-tears were observed in the Gupta matched cohort study (31 augmented, 31 control) at 6 months, with a 100% healing rate in both groups [2]. In a retrospective review of 94 cases, one Australian surgeon reported a pre-EnFix failure rate of 8.3% versus a post-EnFix failure rate of 5.3%, representing a 36% reduction [1].
Aseptic loosening: In complex rotator cuff tears augmented with DBM (Flexigraft) plus PRP and cBMA, Wellington et al. reported 50% MRI-determined failure of supraspinatus healing [6]. These were complex/revision cases without a control group, and the failure rate was similar to rates previously described for such repairs (39.8-70%) [6]. The Wellington study acknowledged that concomitant use of PRP and cBMA made it difficult to isolate the effect of DBM alone [6].
Safety Profile¶
Wound complications: EnFix products are 100% cortical bone allograft with no additives or excipients, conforming to minimal tissue manipulation as defined by the FDA [1]. In all preclinical studies, no evidence of infection, rejection, or untoward immune reactions was noted [5][7]. In the canine model, no clinical signs of infection, dehiscence, or implant problems were noted in any dog during the 12-week study period [5]. In the rabbit model, 3 of 26 rabbits (2 control, 1 DBM) developed postoperative deep infections and were excluded; the infections were not attributable to DBM [7].
Nerve palsy: MRI at 6 months showed nearly no visible evidence of EnFix RC such as marrow edema, cystic change, or adverse localized soft tissue reaction [1]. DBM technology is well-established and safe for clinical use, with extensive use in spinal surgery as a bone void filler and graft material [2]. Compared to xenograft-based or synthetic grafts, DBM may produce less of an inflammatory response [10].
Recovery¶
Rehabilitation Protocol¶
Light activity (weeks): Desk work, driving, and light activities of daily living are typically permitted within the first 2–6 weeks, contingent on the specific surgical technique and repair construct.
Full activity (months): Manual work, sport participation, and full range of motion/strength return generally occur between 3 and 4 months post-operatively.
Complete recovery / outcome plateau (months): Pain, strength, and final functional outcomes stabilize by 4–6 months.
Rehabilitation protocol: Immobilisation and physical therapy phasing vary by technique. In the Gupta study, an abduction sling was maintained for 6 weeks; gentle passive range of motion (ROM) began on day 1, active-assisted ROM at 2 weeks, active ROM at 6 weeks, and strengthening commenced at 12 weeks [2]. For the Villarreal double-row technique, an abduction sling was used for 6 weeks; physical therapy initiated at 2 weeks included pendulum and wrist/elbow exercises, with active-assisted and passive motion at 6 weeks, active motion at 8 weeks, and strengthening at 14–16 weeks [9]. In the Papp single-row technique, an abduction sling with a pillow was maintained for 6 weeks; pendulum exercises began immediately, formal physical therapy started at 7–10 days, gentle passive motion at 3 weeks, gentle active-assisted motion at weeks 4–5, and active ROM at 6 weeks. If the repair includes side-to-side stitches, the formal protocol is delayed to 4–6 weeks [10].
Functional milestones: Preclinical models demonstrate accelerated healing and improved mechanical properties with biological scaffolds. In a rabbit infraspinatus repair model, DBF-treated repairs required 21% greater force at 6 weeks and 26% greater force at 12 weeks to detach tendon from bone compared to controls [1][3]. In the canine model at 12 weeks, DBM-PRP repairs achieved 66% of normal canine infraspinatus stiffness and 37% of normal failure load [5]. In the rabbit model (Lee et al.), at 8 weeks after repair of chronic supraspinatus tears, the DBM group showed organized collagen fibers with large quantities of fibrocartilage and mineralized fibrocartilage at the tendon-bone interface, whereas the control group showed disorganized fibrous tissue [7].
Other Considerations: Healing timelines from preclinical models indicate rapid tissue integration. In the sheep enthesis model, histology at 12 weeks showed enthesis reformation with Sharpey's fibers in the DBF-treated group but not in controls [1][3]. In the rabbit critical-sized femoral defect model, rapid bone formation was observed at 2 weeks with complete remodeling of DBF into bone at 4 weeks [1]. In a sheep screw study, new bone formation occurred around screw threads facilitated by DBF fibers at 4 weeks, with all DBF remodeled into new woven bone by 12 weeks [1].
See Also¶
References¶
[1] Carter AJ, McRury I, Patt BE. EnFix Implants for Enthesis Repair. White Paper, Doc. M24-001 Rev. 04. Tetrous, Inc., 2024.
[2] Banic A, Italia K, Child C, Maharaj J, Whitehouse S, Gupta A. Early clinical and radiologic outcomes after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair augmented with a demineralized bone fiber implant. Submitted to J Clin Med, 2025.
[3] Tetrous, Inc. EnFix Brochure - Shoulder. P5016 Rev. 01, 2025.
[4] Rodeo SA, Potter HG, Kawamura S, Turner AS, Kim HJ, Atkinson BL. Biologic augmentation of rotator cuff tendon-healing with use of a mixture of osteoinductive growth factors. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(11):2485-2497. doi:10.2106/JBJS.C.01627.
[5] Smith MJ, Pfeiffer FM, Cook CR, Kuroki K, Cook JL. Rotator cuff healing using demineralized cancellous bone matrix sponge interposition compared to standard repair in a preclinical canine model. J Orthop Res. 2018;36(3):906-912. doi:10.1002/jor.23680.
[6] Wellington IJ, Muench LN, Hawthorne BC, et al. Clinical outcomes following biologically enhanced demineralized bone matrix augmentation of complex rotator cuff repair. J Clin Med. 2022;11(11):2956. doi:10.3390/jcm11112956.
[7] Lee WY, Kim YM, Hwang DS, et al. Does demineralized bone matrix enhance tendon-to-bone healing after rotator cuff repair in a rabbit model? Clin Orthop Surg. 2021;13(2):216-222. doi:10.4055/cios20099.
[8] Villarreal-Espinosa JB, Berreta RS, Boden SA, et al. Inlay scaffold augmentation of rotator cuff repairs enhances histologic resemblance to native enthesis in animal studies: a systematic review. Arthroscopy. 2024;41(6):2048-2060. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2024.06.048.
[9] Villarreal-Espinosa JB, Saad-Berreta R, Danilkowicz R, et al. Arthroscopic transosseous-equivalent double-row rotator cuff repair augmentation with interpositional demineralized bone fiber implant. Arthrosc Tech. 2024;13(12):103133. doi:10.1016/j.eats.2024.103133.
[10] Goodwin TM, Davidson A, Lerebours FR, Zikria BA, Miniaci A, Papp DF. Arthroscopic single-row rotator cuff repair augmentation with interpositional demineralized bone fiber implant. Arthrosc Tech. 2025;14(11):103880. doi:10.1016/j.eats.2025.103880.