PURPOSE: The aim of this biomechanical in vitro study was to compare the novel technique of double intramedullary cortical button (DICB) fixation with the well-established method of suture anchor (SA) fixation for distal biceps tendon repair. METHODS: A matched-pair analysis (24 human cadaveric radii) was performed with respect to cyclic loadings and failure strengths. Twelve specimens per group were cyclically loaded for 1,000 cycles at 1.5 Hz from 5 to 50 N and from 5 to 100 N, respectively. The tendon-bone displacement was optically analysed using the Image J Software (National Institute of Health). Afterwards, all specimens were pulled to failure. Maximum load to failure and mode of failure were recorded. RESULTS: All DICB constructs passed the cyclic loading test, whereas 4 of the 12 specimens within the SA group failed by anchor pull-out. Cyclic loading showed a mean tendon-bone displacement of 0.6 ± 1.4 mm for the DICB group and 1.4 ± 1.4 mm for the SA group (n.s.) after 1,000 cycles with 50 N, and a mean displacement of 2.1 ± 2.4 mm for the DICB group and 3.5 ± 3.7 mm for the SA group (n.s.) after 1,000 cycles with 100 N. Load to failure testing showed a mean failure load of 312 ± 76 N and a stiffness of 67.1 ± 11.7 N/mm for the DICB technique. The mean load to failure for the SA repair was 200 ± 120 N (n.s.) and the stiffness was 55.9 ± 21.3 N/mm (n.s.). CONCLUSIONS: The novel technique of DICB fixation showed small tendon-bone displacement during cyclic testing and reliable fixation strength to the bone in load to failure. Moreover, all DICB constructs passed cyclic loadings without failure. Based on the current findings, a more aggressive postoperative rehabilitation may be allowed for the DICB repair in clinical use.
PURPOSE: The aim of this biomechanical in vitro study was to compare the novel technique of double intramedullary cortical button (DICB) fixation with the well-established method of suture anchor (SA) fixation for distal biceps tendon repair. METHODS: A matched-pair analysis (24 human cadaveric radii) was performed with respect to cyclic loadings and failure strengths. Twelve specimens per group were cyclically loaded for 1,000 cycles at 1.5 Hz from 5 to 50 N and from 5 to 100 N, respectively. The tendon-bone displacement was optically analysed using the Image J Software (National Institute of Health). Afterwards, all specimens were pulled to failure. Maximum load to failure and mode of failure were recorded. RESULTS: All DICB constructs passed the cyclic loading test, whereas 4 of the 12 specimens within the SA group failed by anchor pull-out. Cyclic loading showed a mean tendon-bone displacement of 0.6 ± 1.4 mm for the DICB group and 1.4 ± 1.4 mm for the SA group (n.s.) after 1,000 cycles with 50 N, and a mean displacement of 2.1 ± 2.4 mm for the DICB group and 3.5 ± 3.7 mm for the SA group (n.s.) after 1,000 cycles with 100 N. Load to failure testing showed a mean failure load of 312 ± 76 N and a stiffness of 67.1 ± 11.7 N/mm for the DICB technique. The mean load to failure for the SA repair was 200 ± 120 N (n.s.) and the stiffness was 55.9 ± 21.3 N/mm (n.s.). CONCLUSIONS: The novel technique of DICB fixation showed small tendon-bone displacement during cyclic testing and reliable fixation strength to the bone in load to failure. Moreover, all DICB constructs passed cyclic loadings without failure. Based on the current findings, a more aggressive postoperative rehabilitation may be allowed for the DICB repair in clinical use.
Authors: David M Rose; Jason D Archibald; Edward G Sutter; Stephen M Belkoff; John H Wilckens Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2010-12-15 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Charles M Jobin; Matthew A Kippe; Thomas R Gardner; William N Levine; Christopher S Ahmad Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2009-07-21 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: David S Pereira; Ronald S Kvitne; Michael Liang; Frank B Giacobetti; Edward Ebramzadeh Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2002 May-Jun Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Abdul D Khan; Steeram Penna; Sri Penna; Qi Yin; Chris Sinopidis; Peter Brownson; Simon P Frostick Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2007-11-28 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: David D Savin; Hristo Piponov; Jonathan N Watson; Ari R Youderian; Farid Amirouche; Giovanni F Solitro; Mark R Hutchinson; Benjamin A Goldberg Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2017-07-22 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Michel P J van den Bekerom; Izaäk F Kodde; Asir Aster; Ronald L A W Bleys; Denise Eygendaal Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2014-09-18 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Sebastian Siebenlist; Stephanie C Fischer; Gunther H Sandmann; Philipp Ahrens; Petra Wolf; Ulrich Stöckle; Andreas B Imhoff; Peter U Brucker Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2013-12-05 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Aditi Majumdar; Christina Salas; William Chavez; Christopher Bankhead; Tony J Sapradit; Deana Mercer; Daniel C Wascher; Dustin L Richter Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Date: 2021-04-16