Sebastian Müller1,2, Rebekka Flury3, Simon Zimmermann4, Michael de Wild4, Simon Fogerty5, Laurent Lafosse6, Vito Bongiorno7, Claudio Rosso3,8. 1. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstrasse 21, 4031, Basel, Switzerland. s.mueller@usb.ch. 2. University of Basel, Petersplatz 1, 4003, Basel, Switzerland. s.mueller@usb.ch. 3. University of Basel, Petersplatz 1, 4003, Basel, Switzerland. 4. School of Life Sciences, Institute for Medical and Analytical Technologies, University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland, Gründenstrasse 40, 4132, Muttenz, Switzerland. 5. Shoulder Clinic Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Trust, Acre Street, Lindley, Huddersfield, HD3 3EA, UK. 6. ALPS Surgery Institute, Clinique Générale, 4 Chemin de la Tour la Reine, 74000, Annecy, France. 7. Polyclinique Notre Dame Draguignan, 345 Avenue Pierre Brossolette, 83300, Draguignan, France. 8. ARTHRO Medics, Shoulder and Elbow Center, Thannerstrasse 45, 4054, Basel, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Suprapectoral tenodesis is a frequently used technique for treating pathologies of the long head of the biceps brachii (LHBB) tendon. However, so far, no Gold Standard treatment exist. Hence, the arthroscopic LassoLoop360 (LL360) technique is introduced aiming to provide secure fixation and improved biomechanical properties. It was hypothesized, that the LL360 technique would show superior biomechanical response to cyclic loading and ultimate load-to-failure testing compared to the commonly used simple Lasso Loop (SLL). METHODS: Twenty-two porcine superficial flexor digitorum tendons were prepared using a No. 2 suture according to either the SLL or the LL360 technique. Displacement after cyclic loading (1.000 cycles) between 5 and 30 N, ultimate load-to-failure (ULTF), mode of failure as well as the construct stiffness were tested. RESULTS: Significantly less displacement was found in the LL360 group (SLL 2.25 ± 0.51 mm; LL360 1.67 ± 0.37 mm; p = 0.01). Ultimate Load to Failure was significantly higher in the LL360 (168.6 ± 29.6 N) as compared to the SLL (124.1 ± 25.8 N, p = 0.02). The LL360 also revealed a significant higher stiffness compared to the SLL (SLL 13.1 ± 0.9 N/mm vs. LL360 19.1 ± 1.0 N/mm, p < 0.001). The most common mode of failure was the suture cutting through the tendon, with a significantly less suture cutting through for the LL360 compared with the SLL (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The LassoLoop360-technique offers superior biomechanical characteristics regarding the tendon-suture-interface compared to the SLL. In the initial healing phase, the suture-tendon-interface is the most vulnerable part of the tendon-suture-anchor construct, the aim of this new technique is to reduce this weakest part of the chain (Ponce et al., Am J Sports Med 39:188-194, 2011). This technique may therefore be beneficial for arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis at the entrance of the bicipital groove.
PURPOSE: Suprapectoral tenodesis is a frequently used technique for treating pathologies of the long head of the biceps brachii (LHBB) tendon. However, so far, no Gold Standard treatment exist. Hence, the arthroscopic LassoLoop360 (LL360) technique is introduced aiming to provide secure fixation and improved biomechanical properties. It was hypothesized, that the LL360 technique would show superior biomechanical response to cyclic loading and ultimate load-to-failure testing compared to the commonly used simple Lasso Loop (SLL). METHODS: Twenty-two porcine superficial flexor digitorum tendons were prepared using a No. 2 suture according to either the SLL or the LL360 technique. Displacement after cyclic loading (1.000 cycles) between 5 and 30 N, ultimate load-to-failure (ULTF), mode of failure as well as the construct stiffness were tested. RESULTS: Significantly less displacement was found in the LL360 group (SLL 2.25 ± 0.51 mm; LL360 1.67 ± 0.37 mm; p = 0.01). Ultimate Load to Failure was significantly higher in the LL360 (168.6 ± 29.6 N) as compared to the SLL (124.1 ± 25.8 N, p = 0.02). The LL360 also revealed a significant higher stiffness compared to the SLL (SLL 13.1 ± 0.9 N/mm vs. LL360 19.1 ± 1.0 N/mm, p < 0.001). The most common mode of failure was the suture cutting through the tendon, with a significantly less suture cutting through for the LL360 compared with the SLL (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The LassoLoop360-technique offers superior biomechanical characteristics regarding the tendon-suture-interface compared to the SLL. In the initial healing phase, the suture-tendon-interface is the most vulnerable part of the tendon-suture-anchor construct, the aim of this new technique is to reduce this weakest part of the chain (Ponce et al., Am J Sports Med 39:188-194, 2011). This technique may therefore be beneficial for arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis at the entrance of the bicipital groove.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biomechanical testing; Biomechanics; LassoLoop360 (LL360); Long Head of the biceps brachii (LHBB) tendon; Single-Lasso-Loop (SLL); Suprapectoral tenodesis
Authors: Thilo Patzer; Jan M Rundic; Evgenij Bobrowitsch; Gavin D Olender; Christof Hurschler; Markus D Schofer Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2011-06-24 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Mufaddal Mustafa Gombera; Cynthia A Kahlenberg; Rueben Nair; Matthew D Saltzman; Michael A Terry Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2015-03-29 Impact factor: 6.202