Robert C Williams1, Randal P Morris1, Marc El Beaino1, Nicholas H Maassen2. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA. 2. Inov8 Orthopedics, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: nickmaass@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Latarjet procedure traditionally has been performed with 2 screws in an open manner. Recently, cortical suture button fixation for coracoid transfer has been used in hopes of mitigating complications seen with screw placement. The aim of this study was to evaluate a cortical suture button and technique currently available in the United States compared with screw fixation in the Latarjet procedure in a cadaveric model. METHODS: We randomly assigned 9 matched pairs of fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders (N = 18) to undergo the Latarjet procedure with either screw fixation or cortical suture button fixation. After fixation, all shoulders underwent biomechanical testing with direct loading on the graft vas a material testing system. Cyclic testing was performed for 100 cycles to determine axial displacement with time; each graft was then monotonically loaded to failure. RESULTS: The maximum cycle displacement was significantly less for screw fixation vs. cortical suture button fixation (3.1 ± 1.3 mm vs. 8.9 ± 2.1 mm, P < .0001). The total load at failure was 481.1 ± 88.8 N for screws and 175.5 ± 95.8 N for cortical suture buttons (P < .0001). Bony damage to the surrounding anatomy was more extensive at failure in the screw-fixation group. CONCLUSION: At time zero, the cortical button fixation and technique did not resist direct loads to the graft as much as traditional screw fixation, although bony damage to the surrounding anatomy was more extensive in screw fixation than button fixation. In the event of unanticipated loading, this could place a patient at higher risk of graft migration, which could lead to unintended early outcomes. These results support the need for implants and techniques specifically tailored to the Latarjet procedure and should bring into question the adoption of a cortical button and technique not specific to the procedure.
BACKGROUND: The Latarjet procedure traditionally has been performed with 2 screws in an open manner. Recently, cortical suture button fixation for coracoid transfer has been used in hopes of mitigating complications seen with screw placement. The aim of this study was to evaluate a cortical suture button and technique currently available in the United States compared with screw fixation in the Latarjet procedure in a cadaveric model. METHODS: We randomly assigned 9 matched pairs of fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders (N = 18) to undergo the Latarjet procedure with either screw fixation or cortical suture button fixation. After fixation, all shoulders underwent biomechanical testing with direct loading on the graft vas a material testing system. Cyclic testing was performed for 100 cycles to determine axial displacement with time; each graft was then monotonically loaded to failure. RESULTS: The maximum cycle displacement was significantly less for screw fixation vs. cortical suture button fixation (3.1 ± 1.3 mm vs. 8.9 ± 2.1 mm, P < .0001). The total load at failure was 481.1 ± 88.8 N for screws and 175.5 ± 95.8 N for cortical suture buttons (P < .0001). Bony damage to the surrounding anatomy was more extensive at failure in the screw-fixation group. CONCLUSION: At time zero, the cortical button fixation and technique did not resist direct loads to the graft as much as traditional screw fixation, although bony damage to the surrounding anatomy was more extensive in screw fixation than button fixation. In the event of unanticipated loading, this could place a patient at higher risk of graft migration, which could lead to unintended early outcomes. These results support the need for implants and techniques specifically tailored to the Latarjet procedure and should bring into question the adoption of a cortical button and technique not specific to the procedure.
Authors: Benjamin Bockmann; E Jaeger; L Dankl; W Nebelung; S Frey; W Schmölz; T L Schulte Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2021-04-30 Impact factor: 2.928