Nels Sampatacos1, Mark H Getelman1, Heath B Henninger2. 1. Southern California Orthopaedics Institute, Van Nuys, CA, USA. 2. Department of Orthopaedics, "H. K. Dunn" Orthopaedic Research Laboratory, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; Department of Bioengineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. Electronic address: heath.henninger@utah.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A novel arthroscopic technique allows for intraosseous tendon placement in biceps tenodesis using bone tunnels and suture while avoiding the expense of an implant. No biomechanical characterization exists for this construct. METHODS: Tensile tests were used to compare a suture-only biceps tenodesis technique (arthroscopic biceps intraosseous tenodesis [ABIT]) with interference screws in 7 pairs of cadaveric shoulders. The ABIT used a modified finger-trap suture method to secure the tendon to itself through an intraosseous bone tunnel. Interference screw placement followed the manufacturer's protocol for implantation. An open technique was used to provide consistency during laboratory preparation. RESULTS: During cyclic loading, the screws were significantly stiffer (P = .040) but dissipated more energy (P = .002). During failure loading, suture-only specimens showed significantly greater failure loads (P < .001) and deformation (P = .046). The failure mechanism for the ABIT method was tendon elongation with progressive tensioning and slippage of the tendon through the suture mass. No complete tendon failure occurred for the ABIT. Gross tendon failure occurred in all interference screw tests at the bone-tendon-screw interface. No screw or suture failed in any biceps tendon test. CONCLUSION: The ABIT construct showed significantly higher failure loads and deformation compared with interference screws. The comparable stiffness after cycling of both constructs suggests that micromotion at the bone-tendon interface is similar, which-in addition to the intraosseous fixation-may be important in promoting healing. The ABIT construct was found to absorb and restore more energy (hysteresis), suggesting potential for greater tendon preservation, which may translate into improved construct longevity. The suture-only method can eliminate the expense of an implant.
BACKGROUND: A novel arthroscopic technique allows for intraosseous tendon placement in biceps tenodesis using bone tunnels and suture while avoiding the expense of an implant. No biomechanical characterization exists for this construct. METHODS: Tensile tests were used to compare a suture-only biceps tenodesis technique (arthroscopic biceps intraosseous tenodesis [ABIT]) with interference screws in 7 pairs of cadaveric shoulders. The ABIT used a modified finger-trap suture method to secure the tendon to itself through an intraosseous bone tunnel. Interference screw placement followed the manufacturer's protocol for implantation. An open technique was used to provide consistency during laboratory preparation. RESULTS: During cyclic loading, the screws were significantly stiffer (P = .040) but dissipated more energy (P = .002). During failure loading, suture-only specimens showed significantly greater failure loads (P < .001) and deformation (P = .046). The failure mechanism for the ABIT method was tendon elongation with progressive tensioning and slippage of the tendon through the suture mass. No complete tendon failure occurred for the ABIT. Gross tendon failure occurred in all interference screw tests at the bone-tendon-screw interface. No screw or suture failed in any biceps tendon test. CONCLUSION: The ABIT construct showed significantly higher failure loads and deformation compared with interference screws. The comparable stiffness after cycling of both constructs suggests that micromotion at the bone-tendon interface is similar, which-in addition to the intraosseous fixation-may be important in promoting healing. The ABIT construct was found to absorb and restore more energy (hysteresis), suggesting potential for greater tendon preservation, which may translate into improved construct longevity. The suture-only method can eliminate the expense of an implant.
Authors: Jan Kubicek; Filip Tomanec; Martin Cerny; Dominik Vilimek; Martina Kalova; David Oczka Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2019-11-27 Impact factor: 3.576
Authors: Zi Jun Deng; Clark Yin; Joseph Cusano; Hussein Abdul-Rassoul; Emily J Curry; David Novikov; Richard Ma; Xinning Li Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2020-08-28
Authors: Arash A Dini; Joshua E Mizels; Sohale Sadeghpour; Michael J O'Brien; Felix H Savoie; Mark H Getelman Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Date: 2020-12-26