Mechanical strength of four different biceps tenodesis techniques

被引:125
作者
Ozalay, M
Akpinar, S
Karaeminogullari, O
Balcik, C
Tasci, A
Tandogan, RN
Gecit, R
机构
[1] Baskent Univ, Sch Med, Adana Med Ctr, Dept Orthopaed, TR-06490 Ankara, Turkey
[2] Baskent Univ, Sch Med, Adana Med Ctr, Dept Traumatol, TR-06490 Ankara, Turkey
[3] Baskent Univ, Sch Med, Ankara Med Ctr, TR-06490 Ankara, Turkey
[4] Baskent Univ, Sch Med, Dept Biomed Engn, TR-06490 Ankara, Turkey
[5] Middle E Tech Univ, Dept Engn Sci, Expt Mech & Biomech Lab, TR-06531 Ankara, Turkey
关键词
arthroscopy; arthroscopic biceps tenodesis; failure load; pull-out strength; soft-tissue fixation; suture anchor;
D O I
10.1016/j.arthro.2005.05.002
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical properties of 4 different biceps tenodesis techniques. Type of Study: Biomechanical experiment. Methods: Four groups of fresh sheep shoulders (28 total) with similar shape characteristics were used. Biceps tenodesis was performed using the following techniques: group I (n = 7), tunnel technique; group 2 (n = 7), interference screw technique; group 3 (n = 7), anchor technique; and group 4 (n = 7), keyhole technique. Each construct was loaded to failure and the groups were compared with respect to maximum load in Newtons and deflection at maximum load in millimeters. The results were statistically analyzed with 1-way analysis of variance, the Bonferroni post hoc test and the Student t test or the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test. Results: The calculated average maximum loads were 229.2 +/- 44.1 N for the tunnel technique, 243.3 +/- 72.4 N for the interference screw, 129.0 +/- 16.6 N for the anchor technique, and 101.7 +/- 27.9 N for the keyhole technique. Statistical testing showed no statistically significant differences between groups 1 and 2, groups 3 and 4, or groups 2 and 3 with respect to maximum load and deflection at maximum load (P =.09/P = .49, P =.41/P =.79, and P =.06/P =.82 for load/deflection in the 3 comparisons, respectively). However, all other group comparisons revealed significant differences for both parameters (group 1 nu group 4 [P < .01/P < .01]; group 1 nu group 3[P < .01/P =.01]; and group 2 nu group 4 [P =.007/P =.003]). Conclusions: The strongest construct was made with the interference screw technique, followed by the tunnel, anchor, and keyhole techniques. There were no statistically significant differences between the interference screw and tunnel techniques with respect to maximum load or deflection at maximum load. Clinical Relevance: Although it is difficult to extrapolate in vitro data to the clinical situation, the interference screw technique has better initial biomechanical properties and may produce improved clinical outcomes.
引用
收藏
页码:992 / 998
页数:7
相关论文
共 29 条
[1]
How would you treat the partially torn biceps tendon? [J].
Barber, FA .
ARTHROSCOPY, 2001, 17 (06) :636-637
[2]
TENODESIS OF THE LONG HEAD OF THE BICEPS BRACHII FOR CHRONIC BICIPITAL TENDINITIS - LONG-TERM RESULTS [J].
BECKER, DA ;
COFIELD, RH .
JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 1989, 71A (03) :376-381
[3]
Berlemann U, 1995, J Shoulder Elbow Surg, V4, P429, DOI 10.1016/S1058-2746(05)80034-5
[4]
Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis: A new technique using bioabsorbable interference screw fixation [J].
Boileau, P ;
Krishnan, SG ;
Coste, JS ;
Walch, G .
ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2002, 18 (09) :1002-1012
[5]
BURKHART S S, 1992, Arthroscopy, V8, P31, DOI 10.1016/0749-8063(92)90132-U
[6]
BURKHEAD WZ, 1998, SHOULDER, P1009
[7]
PULL-OUT STRENGTH OF 5 SUTURE ANCHORS [J].
CARPENTER, JE ;
FISH, DN ;
HUSTON, LJ ;
GOLDSTEIN, SA .
ARTHROSCOPY, 1993, 9 (01) :109-113
[8]
SURGICAL TREATMENT OF BICIPITAL TENOSYNOVITIS [J].
CRENSHAW, AH ;
KILGORE, WE .
JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 1966, A 48 (08) :1496-&
[9]
CURTIS AS, 1993, ORTHOP CLIN N AM, V24, P33
[10]
DEPALMA A F, 1954, Clin Orthop, V3, P69