Literature DB >> 25533271

Suprapectoral biceps tenodesis: a biomechanical comparison of a new "soft anchor" tenodesis technique versus interference screw biceps tendon fixation.

Massimiliano Baleani1, Dunia Francesconi2, Lorenzo Zani3, Sandro Giannini2, Stephen J Snyder4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The interference screw technique is commonly used in tenodesis of the long head of the biceps for its well-documented robust fixation strength. Some complications may occur after tenodesis with interference screw such as persistent pain, bone fracture and cyst formation. A new technique using a small "soft anchor" has been proposed to avoid the risk of occurrence of the above-mentioned complications associated with the use of the interference screw. However, the proposed technique must provide adequate fixation strength. This study investigated the mechanical performance of the new technique and compared it with interference screw fixation.
METHODS: Fourteen human humeri and proximal biceps were tested after tenodesis using the two techniques. The fixation constructs were cycled 500 times between 20N and 100N at 1Hz to simulate some level of post-operative physical activity. Then, a tensile test to failure was performed to determine the strength of the two tenodesis constructs.
FINDINGS: The ultimate strength was 238N (SD 96N) and 172N (SD 58N) for the "soft anchor" and the interference screw, respectively (P=0.14). In two out of seven repetitions in both groups, failure occurred at low load level due to inaccuracies in performing tenodesis. Considering these cases as outliers, the strength values increased up to 290N (SD 40N) and 202N (SD 32N) for the "soft anchor" and the interference screw, respectively (P=0.02).
INTERPRETATION: The "soft anchor" technique provides a fixation strength comparable with the interference screw, but without using a screw. It could be considered as an alternative for suprapectoral biceps tenodesis.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biceps tenodesis; Biomechanics; Fixation stiffness; Fixation strength; Mode of failure

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25533271     DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2014.12.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)        ISSN: 0268-0033            Impact factor:   2.063


  6 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.  Long head of biceps tenodesis at the superior aspect of the biceps groove: A biomechanical comparison of inlay and onlay techniques.

Authors:  Paul J Cagle; Daniel A London; Matthew J Gluck; Sabrina Morel; Bradford O Parsons
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2018-12-04

3.  Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis: Interference Screw and Cortical Button Fixation.

Authors:  Nicholas I Kennedy; Jonathan A Godin; Marcio B Ferrari; George Sanchez; Mark E Cinque; Zaamin B Hussain; Matthew T Provencher
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2017-08-28

4.  All-suture anchor and unicortical button show comparable biomechanical properties for onlay subpectoral biceps tenodesis.

Authors:  Alexander Otto; Sebastian Siebenlist; Joshua B Baldino; Matthew Murphy; Lukas N Muench; Julian Mehl; Elifho Obopilwe; Mark P Cote; Andreas B Imhoff; Augustus D Mazzocca
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2020-09-21

5.  Biomechanical evaluation of the long head of the biceps brachii tendon fixed by three techniques: a sheep model.

Authors:  Carlos Henrique Ramos; Júlio Cezar Uili Coelho
Journal:  Rev Bras Ortop       Date:  2016-12-30

6.  Anatomic limitations of biceps tenodesis using an interference screw for Asian people: a cadaveric study.

Authors:  Naoki Umatani; Ryuzo Arai; Shinichi Kuriyama; Shuichi Matsuda
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2020-05-30
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.