Interference Screw Versus Suture Anchor Fixation for Subpectoral Tenodesis of the Proximal Biceps Tendon: A Cadaveric Study

被引:94
|
作者
Golish, S. Raymond [2 ]
Caldwell, Paul E. [3 ]
Miller, Mark D. [2 ]
Singanamala, Naveen [3 ]
Ranawat, Anil S. [4 ]
Treme, Gehron [2 ]
Pearson, Sara E. [3 ]
Costic, Ryan [4 ]
Sekiya, Jon K. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Michigan, Dept Orthoped Surg, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 USA
[2] Univ Virginia, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Charlottesville, VA USA
[3] Orthopaed Res Virginia, Richmond, VA USA
[4] Univ Pittsburgh, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Pittsburgh, PA USA
关键词
Biceps brachii; Tenodesis; Subpectoral; Bone screw; Suture anchors; Proximal;
D O I
10.1016/j.arthro.2008.05.005
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical properties of 2 fixation methods for subpectoral proximal biceps tenodesis. Methods: In 9 matched pairs of cadaveric shoulders, an open subpectoral tenodesis was performed I cm proximal to the inferior border of the pectoralis major tendon by use of either an 8 x 12-mm Bio-Tenodesis screw (Arthrex, Naples, FL) with No. 2 FiberWire sutures (Arthrex) or a 5.5-mm Bio-Corkscrew double-loaded suture anchor (Arthrex) with No. 2 FiberWire sutures. The specimens were dissected and mounted in a material testing machine. Cyclic loading (20 to 60 N, 100 cycles, 0.5 mm/s, 5-N preload) was performed, followed by an unloaded 30-minute rest, a 5-N preload, and a load-to-failure protocol (1.25 mm/s) with a 100-lb load cell. Ultimate load (in Newtons), stiffness (in Newtons per millimeter), and modes of failure were recorded. Data were analyzed by use of paired t tests and Wilcoxon signed rank tests. Results: Proximal biceps tenodeses with Bio-Tenodesis screws had a significantly higher mean load to failure (169.6 +/- 50.5 N; range, 99.6 to 244.7 N) than those with Bio-Corkscrew suture anchors (68.5 +/- 33.0 N; range, 24.2 to 119.4 N) (P = .002). Bio-Tenodesis screws also had a significantly higher stiffness (34.1 +/- 9.0 N/mm; range, 20.6 to 48.9 N/mm) than Bio-Corkscrews (19.3 +/- 10.5; range, 5.9 to 32.9 N/mm) (P = .038). Conclusions: In this cadaveric study the Bio-Tenodesis screw showed a statistically significantly higher load to failure and significantly higher stiffness than the Bio-Corkscrew anchor when used for tenodesis of the proximal biceps tendon in a subpectoral location. Clinical Relevance: Biomechanical comparison of these 2 fixation techniques provides information on stiffness and load to failure of alternate fixation methods.
引用
收藏
页码:1103 / 1108
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Biomechanical evaluation of subpectoral biceps tenodesis: dual suture anchor versus interference screw fixation
    Tashjian, Robert Z.
    Henninger, Heath B.
    JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2013, 22 (10) : 1408 - 1412
  • [2] Subpectoral biceps tenodesis with interference screw fixation
    Mazzocca, AD
    Rios, CG
    Romeo, AA
    Arciero, RA
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2005, 21 (07): : 896.e1 - 896.e7
  • [3] Interference Screw vs. Suture Anchor Fixation for Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis: Does it Matter?
    Peter J Millett
    Brett Sanders
    Reuben Gobezie
    Sepp Braun
    Jon JP Warner
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 9
  • [4] Interference screw vs. suture anchor fixation for open subpectoral biceps tenodesis: Does it matter?
    Millett, Peter J.
    Sanders, Brett
    Gobezie, Reuben
    Braun, Sepp
    Warner, Jon J. P.
    BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2008, 9 (1)
  • [5] Biomechanical Comparison of All-Suture Anchor Fixation and Interference Screw Technique for Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis
    Chiang, Florence L.
    Hong, Chih-Kai
    Chang, Chih-Hsun
    Lin, Cheng-Li
    Jou, I-Ming
    Su, Wei-Ren
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2016, 32 (07): : 1247 - 1252
  • [6] Biomechanical Evaluation of Open Suture Anchor Fixation Versus Interference Screw for Biceps Tenodesis
    Papp, Derek F.
    Skelley, Nathan W.
    Sutter, Edward G.
    Ji, Jong Hun
    Wierks, Carl H.
    Belkoff, Stephen M.
    McFarland, Edward G.
    ORTHOPEDICS, 2011, 34 (07) : E275 - E278
  • [7] Suprapectoral biceps tenodesis: A biomechanical comparison of a new "soft anchor" tenodesis technique versus interference screw biceps tendon fixation
    Baleani, Massimiliano
    Francesconi, Dunia
    Zani, Lorenzo
    Giannini, Sandro
    Snyder, Stephen J.
    CLINICAL BIOMECHANICS, 2015, 30 (02) : 188 - 194
  • [8] Complications following subpectoral biceps tenodesis with interference screw fixation
    Millett, Peter J.
    Rios, Daniel
    Martetschlager, Frank
    Horan, Marilee P.
    OBERE EXTREMITAET-SCHULTER-ELLENBOGEN-HAND-UPPER EXTREMITY-SHOULDER ELBOW HAND, 2014, 9 (04): : 276 - 279
  • [9] A Radiostereometric Analysis of Tendon Migration After Arthroscopic and Mini-Open Biceps Tenodesis: Interference Screw Versus Single Suture Anchor Fixation
    Forsythe, Brian
    Patel, Harsh H.
    Berlinberg, Elyse J.
    Forlenza, Enrico M.
    Okoroha, Kelechi R.
    Williams, Brady T.
    Yanke, Adam B.
    Cole, Brian J.
    Verma, Nikhil N.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2023, 51 (11): : 2869 - 2880
  • [10] Increased Load to Failure in Biceps Tenodesis With All-Suture Suture Anchor Compared With Interference Screw: A Cadaveric Biomechanical Study
    Smuin, Dallas M.
    Vannatta, Emily
    Ammerman, Brittany
    Stauch, Christopher M.
    Lewis, Gregory S.
    Dhawan, Aman
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2021, 37 (10): : 3016 - 3021