Literature DB >> 31072716

Biomechanical Analysis of All-Suture Suture Anchor Fixation Compared With Conventional Suture Anchors and Interference Screws for Biceps Tenodesis.

Rachel M Frank1, Eamon D Bernardoni2, Shreya S Veera1, Brian R Waterman1, Justin W Griffin1, Elizabeth F Shewman1, Brian J Cole1, Anthony A Romeo1, Nikhil N Verma1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the biomechanical properties of all-suture suture anchors (ASSAs) with conventional interference screws (CISs) and conventional suture anchors (CSAs) for long head of the biceps tendon fixation during proximal biceps tenodesis (BT).
METHODS: We randomized 21 fresh-frozen human cadaveric shoulders into 3 subpectoral BT treatment groups: ASSA, CSA, and CIS. Each construct was cyclically loaded from 5 to 70 N for 500 cycles (1 Hz). All specimens that survived cyclic loading were then pulled to failure (1 mm/s). Elongation, maximum load, energy, and failure mode were recorded. The humerus was stripped of tissue and then subjected to torsional displacement at a rate of 1°/s until fracture occurred. Maximum load, displacement, stiffness, and energy were recorded.
RESULTS: During tendon testing, 3 specimens (43%) in the CIS group failed early during cyclic testing by the tendon tearing at the screw-tendon interface. All other specimens in the CIS group, as well as all specimens in the ASSA and CSA groups, survived cyclic testing and failed during pull-to-failure testing. Failure occurred at the tendon-anchor or -screw interface in all specimens (100%), with no anchor or screw pullout. The CIS group had significantly decreased elongation (8.9 ± 2.23 mm) at maximum load compared with the ASSA (19.2 ± 5.2 mm) and CSA (18.9 ± 2.23 mm) groups (P = .001). During torsional testing, the ASSA group was able to withstand significantly greater torsional displacement (9.22° ± 0.86°) before failure and had greater energy to failure (497.3 ± 45 Nmm-degrees) than the CIS group (6.13° ± 1.24° and 256.6 ± 70.3 Nmm-degrees, respectively; P = .005).
CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the biomechanical properties of ASSA, CSA, and CIS constructs are similar. The interference screw group had lower tendon elongation at maximum load but had several early failures compared with the suture anchor groups. The use of suture anchors results in maximum tendon and torsional bone loads similar to interference screws for the long head of the biceps tendon. Torsional testing of the CIS resulted in spiral fractures traversing the screw tunnel in 100% of the specimens, which was not found in the suture anchor groups. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The ASSA is a viable fixation method for BT in comparison with the CSA and CIS.
Copyright © 2019 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31072716     DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2019.01.026

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


  12 in total

Review 1.  The rate and reporting of fracture after biceps tenodesis: A systematic review.

Authors:  Hailey P Huddleston; Joey S Kurtzman; Samuel Gedailovich; Steven M Koehler; William R Aibinder
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2021-11-24

2.  [Effectiveness comparison of arthroscopic intertubercular groove and open subpectoral tenodesis for long head of biceps tendon tendinopathy].

Authors:  Xianxiang Xiang; Yupeng Liu; Rongjin Chen; Yu Liu; Jue Gong; Danmei Li; Weiming Wang
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2021-10-15

3.  Short-Term Clinical and Return-to-Work Outcomes After Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Onlay Biceps Tenodesis With a Single Suture Anchor.

Authors:  Brandon C Cabarcas; Alexander Beletsky; Joseph Liu; Anirudh K Gowd; Brandon J Manderle; Matthew Cohn; Nikhil N Verma
Journal:  Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil       Date:  2021-05-29

4.  High-Tensile Strength Tapes Show Greater Ultimate Failure Load and Less Stiffness Than High-Tensile Strength Sutures in a Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Porcine Model.

Authors:  Chih-Kai Hong; Wei-Ren Su; Fa-Chuan Kuan; Yueh Chen; Chen-Hao Chiang; Kai-Lan Hsu
Journal:  Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil       Date:  2020-10-15

5.  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

6.  Mini-Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Using a Suture Anchor with Bone-Bridge Backup.

Authors:  Therese Dela Rueda; Shane Rayos Del Sol; Steven Perinovic; Whitney Tse; Stewart Bryant; Brandon Gardner; Moyukh O Chakrabarti; Patrick J McGahan; James L Chen
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2021-11-02

Review 7.  Management of proximal biceps tendon pathology.

Authors:  Simon P Lalehzarian; Avinesh Agarwalla; Joseph N Liu
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2022-01-18

8.  Arthroscopic Single-Portal Suprapectoral Biceps Tenodesis With All-Suture Anchor.

Authors:  Abhishek Kannan; Charles J Cogan; Alan L Zhang
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2022-02-08

9.  Can a Two Simple Stitches Method Provide Secure Fixation Strength in Biceps Tenodesis?: Biomechanical Evaluation of Various Suture Techniques.

Authors:  Tae Min Kim; Myung Ho Shin; Samuel Baek; Dong Ryun Lee; Seok Won Chung
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2022-06-30

10.  Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Biceps Tenodesis: The "Double Secure Loop Technique" Using an All-Suture Anchor and an Arthroscopic Suture Passer.

Authors:  Hyunwoo Kim; Kyujo Lee; Il-Tae Jang; Dong Cheul Shin
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2019-11-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.