Literature DB >> 21704467

Biomechanical comparison of arthroscopically performable techniques for suprapectoral biceps tenodesis.

Thilo Patzer1, Jan M Rundic, Evgenij Bobrowitsch, Gavin D Olender, Christof Hurschler, Markus D Schofer.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to biomechanically compare the cyclic and ultimate failure load (UFL) of 4 widely used techniques for arthroscopically performable suprapectoral tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHB).
METHODS: We used 28 fresh-frozen human cadaveric specimens (mean age, 65 years [range, 43 to 78 years; SD, 6.7 years]; 43% male specimens) to investigate 4 different techniques for LHB tenodesis. All techniques were performed in an open manner, with localization at the entrance of the bicipital groove. Two suture anchor techniques (Healix [DePuy Mitek, Raynham, MA], 5.5 mm, with modified lasso-loop stitch; BioSwiveLock [Arthrex, Naples, FL], 5.5 mm, with interlocking Krackow stitch) and two techniques using tenodesis screws (Bio-Tenodesis screw [Arthrex], 8 × 23 mm; Biceptor [Smith & Nephew, Andover, MA], 8 × 25 mm) were investigated. Under a 10-N preload, an axial cyclic load with 100 cycles, 1-Hz frequency, and 50-N maximum load was applied. UFL was evaluated with an axial traction of 0.2 mm/s. LHB displacement during testing was measured by 3-dimensional photogrammetry.
RESULTS: All techniques had a mean displacement of less than 3 mm after cyclic loading. The highest UFL was measured with the Bio-Tenodesis screw (mean, 218.3 N; range, 134.0 to 313.0 N; SD, 59.7 N) and the lowest with the BioSwiveLock (mean, 111.2 N; range, 60.0 to 156.8 N; SD, 32.3 N). The Healix had the second highest UFL (mean, 187.1 N; range, 144.7 to 245.0 N; SD, 35.5 N), followed by the Biceptor (mean, 173.9 N; range, 147.0 to 209.3 N; SD, 27.2 N). There was no significant difference between the Healix, Bio-Tenodesis screw, and Biceptor (P > .05), but the Healix and Bio-Tenodesis screw had a significantly higher UFL than the BioSwiveLock (P < .01). The failure mode was either suture cutout or failure at the anchor-suture-bone interface or of the tendon itself and was generally dependent on technique.
CONCLUSIONS: All techniques resisted cyclic testing without a higher grade of displacement, and all devices except the BioSwiveLock had a satisfactory UFL whereas different failure mechanisms were present. The modified lasso-loop stitch provides sufficient tendon fixation and is equivalent to interference screws. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The lasso-loop suture anchor technique is an appropriate alternative for suprapectoral LHB tenodesis compared with tenodesis screw techniques.
Copyright © 2011 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21704467     DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2011.03.082

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arthroscopy        ISSN: 0749-8063            Impact factor:   4.772


  22 in total

1.  The influence of suprapectoral arthroscopic biceps tenodesis for isolated biceps lesions on elbow flexion force and clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Martin Hufeland; Carina Kolem; Christoph Ziskoven; Jörn Kircher; Rüdiger Krauspe; Thilo Patzer
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-11-12       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  An Arthroscopic Technique for Long Head of Biceps Tenodesis With Double Knotless Screw.

Authors:  Wei-Ren Su; Florence Y Ling; Chih-Kai Hong; Chih-Hsun Chang; Kai-Chen Chung; I-Ming Jou
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2015-08-17

3.  Arthroscopic suture anchor tenodesis: loop-suture technique.

Authors:  Min Soo Shon; Kyoung Hwan Koh; Tae Kang Lim; Seung Won Lee; Young Eun Park; Jae Chul Yoo
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2013-03-29

4.  Arthroscopic Transtendinous Biceps Tenodesis With All-Suture Anchor.

Authors:  Chien-An Shih; Florence L Chiang; Chih-Kai Hong; Cheng-Wei Lin; Ping-Hui Wang; I-Ming Jou; Wei-Ren Su
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2017-06-05

5.  The new LassoLoop360° technique for biomechanically superior tissue grip.

Authors:  Sebastian Müller; Rebekka Flury; Simon Zimmermann; Michael de Wild; Simon Fogerty; Laurent Lafosse; Vito Bongiorno; Claudio Rosso
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2019-06-28       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Arthroscopic Biceps Tenodesis From a Superior Viewing Portal in the Shoulder.

Authors:  Andrew A Tarleton; Liang Zhou; Michael J O'Brien; Felix H Savoie
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2015-08-24

7.  Subpectoral biceps tenodesis: a new technique using an all-suture anchor fixation.

Authors:  Wei-Ren Su; Florence Y Ling; Chih-Kai Hong; Chih-Hsun Chang; Cheng-Li Lin; I-Ming Jou
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-10-02       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  The biomechanical performance of a new forked knotless biceps tenodesis compared to a knotless and suture anchor tenodesis.

Authors:  Olaf Lorbach; Christian Trennheuser; Dieter Kohn; Konstantinos Anagnostakos
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-10-08       Impact factor: 4.342

9.  Biomechanical properties of tenotomy versus biceps knot in a cadaver model.

Authors:  Micah Lissy; Amanda Esquivel; Allison Cracchiolo; Stephen Lemos
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2016-05-06

10.  Biomechanical consequences of proximal biceps tenodesis stitch location: musculotendinous junction versus tendon only.

Authors:  Ulrich J Spiegl; Sean D Smith; Simon A Euler; Peter J Millett; Coen A Wijdicks
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-06-27       Impact factor: 4.342

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.