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
  • [21] Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis: All-Suture Anchor Onlay Technique
    Lacheta, Lucca
    Imhoff, Andreas B.
    Siebenlist, Sebastian
    Scheiderer, Bastian
    ARTHROSCOPY TECHNIQUES, 2020, 9 (05): : E651 - E655
  • [22] Clinical outcomes after subpectoral biceps tenodesis with an interference screw
    Mazzocca, Augustus D.
    Cote, Mark P.
    Arciero, Cristina L.
    Romeo, Anthony A.
    Arciero, Robert A.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2008, 36 (10): : 1922 - 1929
  • [23] Biomechanical Comparison of Intramedullary Cortical Button Fixation and Interference Screw Technique for Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis
    Buchholz, Arne
    Martetschlaeger, Frank
    Siebenlist, Sebastian
    Sandmann, Gunther H.
    Hapfelmeier, Alexander
    Lenich, Andreas
    Millett, Peter J.
    Stoeckle, Ulrich
    Elser, Florian
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2013, 29 (05): : 845 - 853
  • [24] Failure of Biceps Tenodesis With Interference Screw Fixation
    Koch, Benjamin Shay
    Burks, Robert T.
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2012, 28 (05): : 735 - 740
  • [25] Complications after subpectoral biceps tenodesis using a dual suture anchor technique
    Abtahi, Amir M.
    Granger, Erin K.
    Tashjian, Robert Z.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SHOULDER SURGERY, 2014, 8 (02): : 47 - 50
  • [26] Mini-Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis With an All-Suture Anchor
    Christian, David R.
    Redondo, Michael L.
    Cvetanovich, Gregory L.
    Beer, Adam J.
    Cole, Brian J.
    OPERATIVE TECHNIQUES IN SPORTS MEDICINE, 2018, 26 (02) : 105 - 109
  • [27] Arthroscopic Soft Tissue Tenodesis Versus Bony Fixation Anchor Tenodesis of the Long Head of the Biceps Tendon
    Scheibel, Markus
    Schroeder, Ralf-Juergen
    Chen, Jianhai
    Bartschy, Martin
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2011, 39 (05): : 1046 - 1052
  • [28] Biomechanical comparison of the three techniques for arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis: implant-free intraosseous tendon fixation with Cobra Guide, interference screw and suture anchor
    Poberaj B.
    Marjanovič B.
    Zupančič M.
    Nabergoj M.
    Cvetko E.
    Balažic M.
    Senekovič V.
    MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY, 2020, 104 (1) : 49 - 57
  • [29] Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Using Dynamic Endobutton Fixation in a Humeral Bone Tunnel With Interference Screw Augmentation
    Mithoefer, Kai
    TECHNIQUES IN SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2011, 12 (03): : 51 - 55
  • [30] A comparison of cortical button with interference screw versus suture anchor techniques for distal biceps brachii tendon repairs
    Olsen, Joshua R.
    Shields, Edward
    Williams, Richard B.
    Miller, Richard
    Maloney, Michael
    Voloshin, Ilya
    JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2014, 23 (11) : 1607 - 1611