Olaf Lorbach1, Christian Trennheuser2, Dieter Kohn2, Konstantinos Anagnostakos2. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Saarland University, Kirrberger Str., Geb. 37, 66421, Homburg (Saar), Germany. olaf.lorbach@gmx.de. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Saarland University, Kirrberger Str., Geb. 37, 66421, Homburg (Saar), Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Biomechanical comparison of three different fixation techniques for a proximal biceps tenodesis. METHODS: Eighteen human cadaver specimens were used for the testing. A tenodesis of the proximal biceps tendon was performed using a double-loaded suture anchor (5.5-mm Corkscrew, Arthrex), a knotless anchor (5.5-mm SwiveLock, Arthrex) or a forked knotless anchor (8-mm SwiveLock, Arthrex). Reconstructions were cyclically loaded for 50 cycles from 10-60 to 10-100 N. Cyclic displacement and ultimate failure loads were determined, and mode of failure was evaluated. RESULTS: Cyclic displacement at 60 N revealed a mean of 3.3 ± 1.1 mm for the Corkscrew, 5.4 ± 1.4 mm for the 5.5-mm SwiveLock and 2.9 ± 1.6 mm for the 8-mm forked SwiveLock. At 100 N, 5.1 ± 2.2 mm were seen for the Corkscrew anchor, 8.7 ± 2.5 mm for the 5.5-mm SwiveLock and 4.8 ± 3.3 mm for the 8-mm forked SwiveLock anchor. Significant lower cyclic displacement was seen for the Corkscrew anchor (p < 0.020) as well as the 8-mm SwiveLock anchor (p < 0.023) compared to the 5.5-mm SwiveLock anchor at 60 N. An ultimate load to failure of 109 ± 27 N was found for the Corkscrew anchor, 125 ± 25 N were measured for the 5.5-mm SwiveLock anchor, and 175 ± 42 N were found for the 8-mm forked SwiveLock anchor. Significant differences were seen between the 8-mm SwiveLock compared to the 5.5-mm SwiveLock (p < 0.044) as well as the Corkscrew anchor (p < 0.009). No significant differences were seen between the Corkscrew and the 5.5-mm SwiveLock anchor. CONCLUSIONS: The new 8-mm forked SwiveLock anchor significantly enhances construct stability compared to a 5.5-mm double-loaded Corkscrew anchor as well as the 5.5-mm SwiveLock suture anchor. However, a restrictive postoperative rehabilitation seems to be important in all tested reconstructions in order to avoid early failure of the construct.
PURPOSE: Biomechanical comparison of three different fixation techniques for a proximal biceps tenodesis. METHODS: Eighteen human cadaver specimens were used for the testing. A tenodesis of the proximal biceps tendon was performed using a double-loaded suture anchor (5.5-mm Corkscrew, Arthrex), a knotless anchor (5.5-mm SwiveLock, Arthrex) or a forked knotless anchor (8-mm SwiveLock, Arthrex). Reconstructions were cyclically loaded for 50 cycles from 10-60 to 10-100 N. Cyclic displacement and ultimate failure loads were determined, and mode of failure was evaluated. RESULTS: Cyclic displacement at 60 N revealed a mean of 3.3 ± 1.1 mm for the Corkscrew, 5.4 ± 1.4 mm for the 5.5-mm SwiveLock and 2.9 ± 1.6 mm for the 8-mm forked SwiveLock. At 100 N, 5.1 ± 2.2 mm were seen for the Corkscrew anchor, 8.7 ± 2.5 mm for the 5.5-mm SwiveLock and 4.8 ± 3.3 mm for the 8-mm forked SwiveLock anchor. Significant lower cyclic displacement was seen for the Corkscrew anchor (p < 0.020) as well as the 8-mm SwiveLock anchor (p < 0.023) compared to the 5.5-mm SwiveLock anchor at 60 N. An ultimate load to failure of 109 ± 27 N was found for the Corkscrew anchor, 125 ± 25 N were measured for the 5.5-mm SwiveLock anchor, and 175 ± 42 N were found for the 8-mm forked SwiveLock anchor. Significant differences were seen between the 8-mm SwiveLock compared to the 5.5-mm SwiveLock (p < 0.044) as well as the Corkscrew anchor (p < 0.009). No significant differences were seen between the Corkscrew and the 5.5-mm SwiveLock anchor. CONCLUSIONS: The new 8-mm forked SwiveLock anchor significantly enhances construct stability compared to a 5.5-mm double-loaded Corkscrew anchor as well as the 5.5-mm SwiveLock suture anchor. However, a restrictive postoperative rehabilitation seems to be important in all tested reconstructions in order to avoid early failure of the construct.
Authors: Paul M Sethi; Arun Rajaram; Knut Beitzel; Thomas R Hackett; David M Chowaniec; Augustus D Mazzocca Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2012-06-26 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Augustus D Mazzocca; James Bicos; Stephen Santangelo; Anthony A Romeo; Robert A Arciero Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Sergio L Checchia; Pedro S Doneux; Alberto N Miyazaki; Luciana A Silva; Marcelo Fregoneze; Andréa Ossada; Carlos Y Tsutida; Cássio Masiole Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2005 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Mark C Drakos; Nikhil N Verma; Lawrence V Gulotta; Frank Potucek; Samuel Taylor; Stephen Fealy; Ronald M Selby; Stephen J O'Brien Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2007-11-08 Impact factor: 4.772