Biomechanical properties of suprapectoral biceps tenodesis with double-anchor knotless luggage tag sutures vs. subpectoral biceps tenodesis with single-anchor whipstitch suture using all-suture anchors.

All-suture anchor Biceps tenodesis Biomechanics Proximal biceps brachii tendon Subpectoral Suprapectoral

Journal

JSES international
ISSN: 2666-6383
Titre abrégé: JSES Int
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101763461

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Nov 2023
Historique:
medline: 16 11 2023
pubmed: 16 11 2023
entrez: 16 11 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

As the use of all-suture anchors continues to increase, limited biomechanical data on the use of these anchors in various configurations for tenodesis of the long head biceps tendon (LHBT) exists. The aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical properties of a 2-anchor luggage tag suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (Sup-BT) vs. a single-anchor whipstitch subpectoral biceps tenodesis (Sub-BT) using all-suture anchors. The hypothesis was that the Sub-BT will have a higher ultimate load to failure and less creep relative to the Sup-BT construct. Eighteen fresh frozen cadaveric humeri were used. The specimens were randomly divided into 2 groups of 9; i) The Sup-BT were performed with 2 1.8 mm knotless all-suture anchors using a luggage-tag fixation configuration, ii) The Sub-BT were performed using a single 1.9 mm all-suture anchor and a whipstitch suture configuration with a tied knot. The humeri were tested on a hydraulic MTS machine where the specimens were preloaded at 5 N for 2 minutes and then cyclically loaded from 5 to 50 N for 1000 cycles at 1 Hz while maximum displacement was recorded with a motion system and markers attached to the bone and bicep tendon. The tendon was then tensioned at a rate of 1 mm/s to obtain the ultimate load to failure. CT scans of the specimens were used to calculate the bone mineral density at the site of the anchor/bone interface and video recordings were captured during load to failure to document all modes of failure. There was no significant difference in the average load to failure of the Sup-BT and Sub-BT groups (197 N ± 45 N (SD), 164 N ± 68 N (SD) respectively; The ultimate load to failure and creep between a Sup-BT with 2 knotless all-suture anchors using a luggage tag suture configuration was equivalent to a Sub-BT with 1 all-suture anchor using a whipstitched suture configuration and a tied knot. Surgeons can perform either technique confidently knowing that they are biomechanically equivalent in a cadaver model at time zero, and they offer similar strength to other fixation methods cited in the literature.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
As the use of all-suture anchors continues to increase, limited biomechanical data on the use of these anchors in various configurations for tenodesis of the long head biceps tendon (LHBT) exists. The aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical properties of a 2-anchor luggage tag suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (Sup-BT) vs. a single-anchor whipstitch subpectoral biceps tenodesis (Sub-BT) using all-suture anchors. The hypothesis was that the Sub-BT will have a higher ultimate load to failure and less creep relative to the Sup-BT construct.
Methods UNASSIGNED
Eighteen fresh frozen cadaveric humeri were used. The specimens were randomly divided into 2 groups of 9; i) The Sup-BT were performed with 2 1.8 mm knotless all-suture anchors using a luggage-tag fixation configuration, ii) The Sub-BT were performed using a single 1.9 mm all-suture anchor and a whipstitch suture configuration with a tied knot. The humeri were tested on a hydraulic MTS machine where the specimens were preloaded at 5 N for 2 minutes and then cyclically loaded from 5 to 50 N for 1000 cycles at 1 Hz while maximum displacement was recorded with a motion system and markers attached to the bone and bicep tendon. The tendon was then tensioned at a rate of 1 mm/s to obtain the ultimate load to failure. CT scans of the specimens were used to calculate the bone mineral density at the site of the anchor/bone interface and video recordings were captured during load to failure to document all modes of failure.
Results UNASSIGNED
There was no significant difference in the average load to failure of the Sup-BT and Sub-BT groups (197 N ± 45 N (SD), 164 N ± 68 N (SD) respectively;
Conclusion UNASSIGNED
The ultimate load to failure and creep between a Sup-BT with 2 knotless all-suture anchors using a luggage tag suture configuration was equivalent to a Sub-BT with 1 all-suture anchor using a whipstitched suture configuration and a tied knot. Surgeons can perform either technique confidently knowing that they are biomechanically equivalent in a cadaver model at time zero, and they offer similar strength to other fixation methods cited in the literature.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37969507
doi: 10.1016/j.jseint.2023.07.013
pii: S2666-6383(23)00188-3
pmc: PMC10638590
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

2393-2399

Informations de copyright

© 2023 The Authors.

Références

Arthrosc Tech. 2013 Mar 25;2(2):e95-7
pubmed: 23875157
Orthop J Sports Med. 2019 Oct 15;7(10):2325967119876276
pubmed: 31663008
Arthroscopy. 2020 Dec;36(12):3081-3091
pubmed: 32619605
Arthrosc Tech. 2017 Oct 23;6(5):e1953-e1957
pubmed: 29430396
Arthroscopy. 2015 May;31(5):831-5
pubmed: 25660012
Arthroscopy. 2018 Jun;34(6):1755-1761
pubmed: 29482858
J ISAKOS. 2022 Aug;7(4):84-85
pubmed: 35611523
Arthroscopy. 2021 Oct;37(10):3016-3021
pubmed: 33895306
Clin Sports Med. 2016 Jan;35(1):1-18
pubmed: 26614465
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2015 Feb;30(2):188-94
pubmed: 25533271
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018 Mar 21;100(6):479-486
pubmed: 29557864
Unfallchirurgie. 1995 Aug;21(4):198-201
pubmed: 7571157
Arthroscopy. 2011 Apr;27(4):581-92
pubmed: 21444012
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2010 Jul;39(7):E61-3
pubmed: 20844775
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 Mar;28(3):461-469
pubmed: 30573431
Am J Sports Med. 2014 Aug;42(8):1978-84
pubmed: 24925142
Arthroscopy. 2008 Oct;24(10):1103-8
pubmed: 19028161
Arthroscopy. 2019 Jun;35(6):1760-1768
pubmed: 31072716
Arthroscopy. 2005 Jul;21(7):896
pubmed: 16012508
Arthroscopy. 2020 Jan;36(1):23-32
pubmed: 31864581
Am J Sports Med. 2014 Apr;42(4):877-9
pubmed: 24500913
Arthroscopy. 2016 Jul;32(7):1247-52
pubmed: 27039966
Arthroscopy. 2011 Aug;27(8):1036-47
pubmed: 21704467
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Sep;20(6):e7-11
pubmed: 21602065
Arthroscopy. 2020 Mar;36(3):701-707
pubmed: 31973990
JBJS Case Connect. 2020 Jan-Mar;10(1):e0033
pubmed: 31899721
Arthrosc Tech. 2020 Apr 25;9(5):e651-e655
pubmed: 32489840
Arthrosc Tech. 2022 Oct 20;11(11):e1951-e1956
pubmed: 36457383
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2020 Jun;106(4):693-700
pubmed: 32461094
Arthrosc Tech. 2022 Feb 08;11(3):e279-e284
pubmed: 35256964
Arthrosc Tech. 2019 Nov 09;8(12):e1485-e1489
pubmed: 31890527
Am J Sports Med. 2014 Nov;42(11):2583-90
pubmed: 25201442
JSES Int. 2020 Sep 21;4(4):833-837
pubmed: 33345223
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012 Jan;21(1):116-25
pubmed: 21493102

Auteurs

Richard W Nicolay (RW)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City, NY, USA.

Amirhossein Jahandar (A)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City, NY, USA.

Julia S Retzky (JS)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City, NY, USA.

Andreas Kontaxis (A)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City, NY, USA.

Nikhil N Verma (NN)

Section of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Division of Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.

Michael C Fu (MC)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City, NY, USA.

Classifications MeSH