Biomechanical stability of complex coronal plane fracture fixation of the capitellum

Biomechanical Comparison of Distal Biceps Tendon Repair Techniques: Extracortical Single-Button Inlay Fixation Versus Intracortical Double-Button Onlay Anatomic Footprint Fixation

BACKGROUND

Extracortical single-button (SB) inlay repair is a commonly used distal biceps tendon technique. However, complications (eg, neurovascular injury) and nonanatomic repairs have led to the development of intracortical fixation techniques.

PURPOSE

To compare the biomechanical stability of extracortical SB repair with an anatomic intracortical double-button (DB) repair technique.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

The distal biceps tendon was transected in 18 cadaveric elbows from 9 donors. One elbow of each donor was randomly assigned to the extracortical SB or anatomic DB group. Both groups were cyclically loaded with 60 N over 1000 cycles between 90° of flexion and full extension. The elbow was then fixed in 90° of flexion and the repair construct loaded to failure. Gap formation and construct stiffness during cyclic loading and ultimate load to failure were analyzed.

RESULTS

When compared with the extracortical SB technique after 1000 cycles, the anatomic DB technique showed significantly less gap formation (mean ± SD, 2.7 ± 0.8 vs 1.5 ± 0.9 mm; P = .017) and significantly more construct stiffness (87.4 ± 32.7 vs 119.9 ± 31.6 N/mm; P = .023). Ultimate load to failure was not significantly different between the groups (277 ± 93 vs 285 ± 135 N; P = .859). The failure mode in the anatomic DB group was significantly different from that of the extracortical SB technique (P = .002) and was due to fracture avulsion of the cortical button in 7 of 9 specimens (vs none in the SB group).

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that the intracortical DB technique produces equivalent or superior biomechanical performance to that of the SB technique. The DB technique may offer a clinically viable alternative to the SB repair technique.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study suggests, at worst, an equivalent and, at best, a superior biomechanical performance of intracortical anatomic DB footprint repair at the time of surgery. However, the mode of failure suggests that this technique should not be used in patients with poor bone quality.

Morphology of the acromioclavicular-joint score (MAC)

INTRODUCTION

To date there is no generally accepted specific definition or classification of acromioclavicular (AC) joint osteoarthritis. The aim of this study is to analyze morphological parameters using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and to develop a scoring system as a basis for decision making to perform an AC-joint resection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a retrospective-monocentric matched pair study, healthy and affected subjects were investigated using T2 MRI scans in the transverse plane. There were two groups, group 1 (n = 151) included healthy asymptomatic adults with no history of trauma. In group 2, we included n = 99 patients with symptomatic AC joints, who underwent arthroscopic AC-joint resection. The central and posterior joint space width and the AC angle were measured. Morphological changes such as cartilage degeneration, cysts and bone edema were noted. Malalignment of the joint was defined as: posterior joint space width < 2 mm in conjunction with an AC angle > 12°. A scoring system consisting of the measured morphologic factors was developed.

RESULTS

Symptomatic and asymptomatic patients showed significant differences in all measured items. We observed a significant difference in the MAC score for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (mean 10.4 vs. 20.6, p = 0.0001). The ROC (receiver operator characteristic) analysis showed an excellent AUC of 0.899 (p = 0.001). The sensitivity of the MAC score was 0.81 and the specificity 0.86. The MAC score shows a significant moderate correlation with age (r = 0.358; p = 0.001). The correlation of age and the development of symptoms was only weak (r = 0.22, p = 0.001). Symptomatic patients showed significantly more frequent malalignment compared to asymptomatic patients (p = 0.001), but the positive predictive value that a patient with malalignment is also symptomatic is only 55%.

CONCLUSION

Patients with symptomatic AC joints showed a typical pattern of morphological changes on axial MRI scans with early posterior contact of the joint surfaces, reduction of joint space and malalignment as the basis for the development of a scoring system. The MAC score shows excellent test characteristics, and therefore, proved to be both an appropriate guidance for clinical practice as well as an excellent tool for comparative studies and is superior to the assessment of malalignment alone.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, retrospective diagnostic study.

A new all-suture tension band tape fixation technique for simple olecranon fractures versus conventional tension band wire fixation: a comparative biomechanics study

HYPOTHESIS

Simple transverse or short oblique olecranon fractures without articular comminution are classified as Mayo type IIA fractures and are typically treated with a tension band wire construct. Because of the high reoperation rates, frequently because of prominent hardware, all-suture tension band constructs have been introduced. It was the purpose to compare the biomechanical performance of conventional tension band wire fixation with a new all-suture tension band tape fixation for simple olecranon fractures.

METHODS

Mayo type IIA olecranon fractures were created in 20 cadaveric elbows from 10 donors. One elbow of each donor was randomly assigned to the tension band wire technique (group TBW) or tension band tape (Arthrex, 1.3-mm SutureTape) technique (group TBT). Both groups were cyclically loaded with 500 N over 500 cycles, after which a uniaxial displacement was performed to evaluate load to failure. Data were analyzed for gap formation after cyclic loading, construct stiffness, and ultimate load to failure, where failure was defined as fracture gap formation greater than 4.0 mm.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in gap formation after 500 cycles between the TBW (1.8 mm ± 1.3 mm) and the TBT (1.9 mm ± 1.1 mm) groups (P = .854). The TBT showed a tendency toward greater construct stiffness compared with the TBW construct (mean difference: 142 N/mm; P = .053). Ultimate load to failure was not significantly different comparing both groups (TBW: 1138 N ± 286 N vs. TBT: 1126 N ± 272 N; P = .928). In both groups, all repairs failed because of >4.0-mm gap formation at the fracture site and none because of tension band construct breakage.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that the TBT technique produces equivalent or superior biomechanical performance to the TBW for simple olecranon fractures. The TBT approach reduces the risk of hardware prominence and as a result mitigates against the need for hardware removal. The TBT technique offers a clinically viable alternative to TBW.