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
  • [31] Mini-open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Using All-Suture Anchor
    Gifford, Abbott
    Tauro, Tracy
    Haunschild, Eric
    Okoroha, Kelechi
    Cole, Brian J.
    ARTHROSCOPY TECHNIQUES, 2020, 9 (04): : E445 - E451
  • [32] Biomechanical Evaluation of Humerus Fracture After Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis With Interference Screw Versus Unicortical Button
    Khalid, Mohammed A.
    Morris, Randal P.
    Black, Natalie
    Maassen, Nicholas H.
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2020, 36 (05): : 1253 - 1260
  • [33] Biomechanical Analysis of All-Suture Suture Anchor Fixation Compared With Conventional Suture Anchors and Interference Screws for Biceps Tenodesis
    Frank, Rachel M.
    Bernardoni, Eamon D.
    Veera, Shreya S.
    Waterman, Brian R.
    Griffin, Justin W.
    Shewman, Elizabeth F.
    Cole, Brian J.
    Romeo, Anthony A.
    Verma, Nikhil N.
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2019, 35 (06): : 1760 - 1768
  • [34] Proximal versus distal screw placement for biceps tenodesis: a biomechanical study
    De Villiers, Daniel Johannes
    Loh, Brian
    Tacey, Mark
    Keith, Prue
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY, 2016, 24 (02) : 258 - 261
  • [35] Effect of Interference Screw Depth on Fixation Strength in Biceps Tenodesis
    Salata, Michael J.
    Bailey, James R.
    Bell, Rebecca
    Frank, Rachel M.
    McGill, Kevin C.
    Lin, Emery C.
    Kercher, James S.
    Wang, Vincent M.
    Provencher, Matthew T.
    Mazzocca, Augustus D.
    Verma, Nikhil N.
    Romeo, Anthony A.
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2014, 30 (01): : 11 - 15
  • [36] A Simple Surgical Technique for Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Using a Double-Loaded Suture Anchor
    Scully, William F.
    Wilson, David J.
    Grassbaugh, Jason A.
    Branstetter, Joanna G.
    Marchant, Bryant G.
    Arrington, Edward D.
    ARTHROSCOPY TECHNIQUES, 2013, 2 (02): : E191 - E196
  • [37] Biomechanical Analysis of Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Effect of Screw Malpositioning on Proximal Humeral Strength
    Euler, Simon A.
    Smith, Sean D.
    Williams, Brady T.
    Dornan, Grant J.
    Millett, Peter J.
    Wijdicks, Coen A.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2015, 43 (01): : 69 - 74
  • [38] Editorial Commentary: What Is More Important: Strength or Displacement? Findings of All-Suture Anchor Versus Interference Screw for Biceps Tenodesis
    Provencher, Matthew T.
    Peebles, Annalise M.
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2021, 37 (10): : 3022 - 3024
  • [39] Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis With PEEK Interference Screw: A Biomechanical Analysis of Humeral Fracture Risk
    Mellano, Christopher R.
    Frank, Rachel M.
    Shin, Jason J.
    Jain, Akshay
    Zuke, William A.
    Mascarenhas, Randy
    Shewman, Elizabeth
    Cole, Brian J.
    Romeo, Anthony A.
    Verma, Nikhil N.
    Forsythe, Brian
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2018, 34 (03): : 806 - 813
  • [40] Biceps Tenodesis With Interference Screw Fixation: A Biomechanical Comparison of Screw Length and Diameter
    Slabaugh, Maj Mark A.
    Frank, Rachel M.
    Van Thiel, Geoffrey S.
    Bell, Rebecca M.
    Wang, Vincent M.
    Trenhaile, Scott
    Provencher, Matthew T.
    Romeo, Anthony A.
    Verma, Nikhil N.
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2011, 27 (02): : 161 - 166