Biomechanical Analysis of All-Suture Suture Anchor Fixation Compared With Conventional Suture Anchors and Interference Screws for Biceps Tenodesis

Greater Postoperative Biceps Tendon Migration Following Biceps Tenodesis Correlates with Lower Patient Reported Outcomes Scores

PURPOSE

To assess the relationship between tendon migration, as measured by radiostereometric analysis (RSA), and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following biceps tenodesis (BT); to determine the likelihood of achieving clinically significant outcomes (CSOs) following BT; and to identify factors that impact CSO achievement.

METHODS

Patients undergoing arthroscopic suprapectoral or open subpectoral BT at a single, high-volume academic medical center were prospectively enrolled. A tantalum bead sutured to the tenodesis construct was utilized as a radio-opaque marker. Biceps tendon migration was measured on calibrated radiographs at 12 weeks postoperatively. PROMs (Constant-Murley score [Constant], Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation [SANE], and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information Systemic-Upper Extremity [PROMIS-UE]) were collected preoperatively and at ≥2 years follow-up.

RESULTS

Of 115 patients enrolled, 94 (82%) patients were included (median age=52 years and BMI=31.4 kg/m2). At a mean follow-up of 2.9 years, median Constant, SANE, and PROMIS-UE were 33 (interquartile range [IQR]=26-35), 90 (IQR=80-99), and 47 (IQR=42-58), respectively. Median tantalum bead migration was 6.5 mm (IQR 1.8-13.8). There was a significant correlation between migration and Constant (r2 = 0.222, beta= -0.554, 95% CI -1.027- [-0.081], P=0.022), SANE (r2 = 0.238, beta= -0.198, 95% CI -0.337 - [-0.058], P=0.006) and PROMIS-UE (r2 = 0.233, beta= -0.406, 95% CI -0.707 - [-0.104], P=0.009). In univariable analysis, higher BMI was associated with achievement of substantial clinical benefit (SCB, unadj-OR=1.078, 95%CI 1.007-1.161, P=0.038). Greater bead migration was negatively associated with achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID, unadj-OR=0.969, 95% CI 0.943-0.993, P=0.014) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS, unadj-OR 0.965, 95% CI 0.937-0.989, P=0.008) on all 3 instruments.

CONCLUSION

A 1 cm-increase in tenodesed biceps tendon migration was associated with a decrease in Constant, SANE, and PROMIS-UE of 6, 2, and 4 points, respectively, at a mean of 2.9 years after surgery. Most patients achieved clinically significant outcomes (CSOs) for these PROMs by latest follow-up, and greater biceps tendon construct migration was negatively associated with the likelihood of CSO achievement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective case series.

All-suture anchor size and drill angle influence load to failure in a porcine model of subpectoral biceps tenodesis, a biomechanical study

BACKGROUND

Tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon is frequently performed in shoulder surgery, and all-suture anchors have become more popular as fixation methods. However, uncertainty still exists regarding the ultimate load to failure of all-suture anchors and the best insertion angle at a cortical humeral insertion point.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical characteristics of three types of all-suture anchors frequently used for biceps tenodesis. In addition, the influence of two different insertion angles was observed in a porcine humeri model.

METHODS

The ultimate load to failure and failure mode of three types of all-suture anchors (1.6 FiberTak®, 1.9 FiberTak®, 2.6 FiberTak®, Arthrex®) applicable for subpectoral biceps tenodesis were evaluated at 90° and 45° insertion angles in 12 fresh-frozen porcine humeri. The anchors were inserted equally alternated in a randomized manner at three different insertion sites along the bicipital groove, and the suture tapes were knotted around a rod for pullout testing. In total, 36 anchors were evaluated in a universal testing machine (Zwick & Roell).

RESULTS

The 2.6 FiberTak® shows higher ultimate loads to failure with a 90° insertion angle (944.0 N ± 169.7 N; 537.0 N ± 308.8 N) compared to the 1.9 FiberTak® (677.8 N ± 57.7 N; 426.3 N ± 167.0 N, p-value: 0.0080) and 1.6 FiberTak® (733.0 N ± 67.6 N; 450.0 N ± 155.8 N, p-value: 0.0018). All anchor types show significantly higher ultimate loads to failure and smaller standard deviations at the 90° insertion angle than at the 45° insertion angle. The major failure mode was anchor pullout. Only the 2.6 FiberTak® anchors showed suture breakage as the major failure mode when placed with a 90° insertion angle.

CONCLUSIONS

All three all-suture anchors are suitable fixation methods for subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Regarding our data, we recommend 90° as the optimum insertion angle.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The influence of anchor size and insertion angle of an all-suture anchor should be known by the surgeon for optimizing ultimate loads to failure and for achieving a secure fixation.

Biomechanical comparisons of all--suture suspensory button vs. interference screw for inlay subpectoral bicep tenodesis

BACKGROUND

All-suture buttons (ASBs) and interference screw (IS) are commonly utilized in the inlay subpectoral biceps tendon tenodesis. However, the biomechanical characteristics of these two methods have not been compared directly. The aim of present study was to compare the biomechanical properties of ASB vs. IS for inlay subpectoral biceps tendon tenodesis in a human cadaveric model.

METHODS

Sixteen fresh-frozen human cadaveric shoulders were randomly divided into two experimental inlay biceps tenodesis groups: ASB or IS. After tenodesis, every specimen was preloaded at 5 N for 2 minutes, followed with a cyclic loading test from 5 to 70 N for 500 load cycles. Then the load-to-failure test was performed. Afterward, the humerus was placed in a cylinder tube and secured with anchoring cement. Lastly, a two-point bending test was performed to determine the strength of the humerus. Destructive axial force was applied, and the failure strength and displacement were recorded.

RESULTS

No difference in stiffness was observed between the two groups (ASB = 27.4 ± 3.5 N/mm vs. IS = 29.7 ± 3.0 N/mm; P = .270). Cyclic displacement was significantly greater in the ASB group (6.8 ± 2.6 mm) than the IS group (3.8 ± 1.1 mm; P = .021). In terms of failure load, there were no statistical differences among the two groups (P = .234). The ASB group was able to withstand significantly greater displacement (11.9 ± 1.6 mm) before failure than the IS group (7.8 ± 1.5 mm; P = .001). During the humeral bending test, the ASB group exhibited significantly greater maximal load (2354.8 ± 285.1 N vs. 2086.4 ± 296.1 N; P = .046) and larger displacement (17.8 ± 2.8 mm vs. 14.1 ± 2.8 mm; P = .027) before fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

In inlay subpectoral bicep tenodesis, ASB fixation appears to offer comparable stiffness and failure load to that of IS fixation. Additionally, the ASB group exhibited greater resistance to load and displacement before humeral fracture. However, the ASB group did demonstrate increased cyclic displacement compared to IS group.

The double-lasso loop technique of Biceps tenodesis has lower displacement after cyclic loading, compared to interference screw fixation: Biomechanical analysis in an ovine model

Background

Biceps tenodesis is an effective treatment for symptomatic long head of biceps tendon pathology. Recently the arthroscopic "double lasso-loop" suture anchor (DLSA) technique was described, advantaged by reduced cost, complexity, and operative time. We aimed to compare the in vitro strength of DLSA with conventional interference screws (IS).

Methods

A biomechanical analysis was conducted on 14 sheep shoulders (8 DLSA, 6 IS), consisting of a 500-cycle cyclic loading experiment of 5-70 N and ultimate failure load (UFL) test where each specimen was pulled until failure. Displacement (mm) was recorded every 100 cycles, while stiffness and UFL were observed.

Results

Cyclic displacement was significantly lower with DLSA at 100 cycles, but not above. During the UFL test, IS was stiffer (27.68 ± 6.56 N/mm versus 14.10 ± 5.80 N/mm, p = .005) and had higher UFL (453.67 ± 148.55 N versus 234.22 ± 44.57 N, p = .001) than DLSA. All DLSA failures occurred with suture/anchor pull-out, while all IS constructs failed at the muscle/tendon.

Discussion

Comparison of the novel DLSA technique with a traditional IS method found lower initial displacement. While our IS constructs could withstand higher UFL, peak load characteristics of DLSA were similar to previous ovine studies. Hence, the DLSA technique is a viable alternative to IS for biceps tenodesis with its purported non-biomechanical advantages.

Biomechanical Comparison of Proximal Hamstring Reconstruction Using Distal Hamstring Graft Versus Fascia Lata Graft for Treatment of Chronic Hamstring Injury

BACKGROUND

Surgical reconstruction using autografts is often required in treating chronic proximal hamstring injuries where the hamstring has retracted >5 cm. There is a paucity of evidence that evaluates reconstructive procedures using the 2 most popular autografts, distal hamstring and fascia lata.

PURPOSE

To (1) compare failure load and elongation at failure between the proximal hamstring tendon reconstruction with distal hamstring and fascia lata grafts and (2) compare the stiffness between these reconstructions and the native state.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

Seven pairs of human cadaveric hemipelvises (mean age, 60.4 ± 5.0 years; 6 male, 1 female) with no evidence of previous injury or abnormality were dissected to the proximal hamstring origin. Through use of a dynamic tensile testing system, each specimen underwent preconditioning followed by a distraction test to determine the native specimen stiffness. Each pair of specimens was assigned to undergo proximal hamstring reconstruction with distal hamstring and reconstruction with fascia lata. Each specimen then underwent preconditioning followed by pull to failure. The failure load, elongation at failure, mode of failure, and stiffness were determined for each repair.

RESULTS

The distal hamstring group exhibited a greater failure load (mean, 334 ± 108 N; P = .031) and higher stiffness (mean, 47.6 ± 16.0 N/mm; P = .009) compared with the fascia lata group (mean, 179 ± 78 N and 23.0 ± 11.2 N/mm, respectively). Although the stiffness of the repair state in the distal hamstring group (mean, 61.4 ± 13.4 N/mm) was not significantly different from that of the native state (mean, 47.6 ± 16.0 N/mm), the stiffness of the repair state in the fascia lata group (mean, 23.0 ± 11.2 N/mm) was significantly lower than that of the native state (mean, 60.1 ± 17.7 N/mm) (P < .0001). The elongation at failure of the distal hamstring graft group (mean, 33.0 ± 6.6 mm) was not significantly different from that of the fascia lata graft group (mean, 29.2 ± 14.9 mm) (P = .58). The most common modes of failure for the distal hamstring group (29% each) were at the repair site, at the graft-muscle interface, and at the muscle, while the most common modes of failure for the fascia lata graft were at the tendon-graft interface.

CONCLUSION

The distal hamstring group achieved higher failure load and stiffness than the fascia lata group, and stiffness of the distal hamstring group was not significantly different from that of the native tendon. Elongation at failure was not different between repair techniques. Although distal hamstring graft failure predominantly occurred in 3 distinct locations, failure of the fascia lata repair occurred predominantly at the tendon-graft interface. These cadaveric results suggest that it may be more clinically appropriate to use distal hamstring versus fascia lata for proximal hamstring reconstruction.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Our time-zero study suggests that the proximal hamstring reconstruction with distal hamstring could be the preferred surgical treatment for chronic hamstring injury over reconstruction with fascia lata. The failure load of reconstruction with distal hamstring was inferior to that of primary suture anchor, suggesting that rehabilitation after reconstruction should not be more aggressive than the standard postoperative rehabilitation protocol for acute repair.

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

Background

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

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

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; P = .122) or creep under fatigue between the Sup-BT vs. Sub-BT specimens (3.1 mm, SD = 1.5 vs. 2.2 mm, SD = 0.9; P = .162). The bone mineral density was statistically different between the 2 groups (P < .001); however, there were no observed failures at the anchor/bone interface and no correlation between failure load and bone mineral density.

Conclusion

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.

A Radiostereometric Analysis of Tendon Migration After Arthroscopic and Mini-Open Biceps Tenodesis: Interference Screw Versus Single Suture Anchor Fixation

BACKGROUND

Studies suggest that similar clinical results are achieved via arthroscopic and open biceps tenodesis (BT) techniques.

PURPOSE

To quantify the postoperative migration of the BT construct between arthroscopic suprapectoral BT (ASPBT) and open subpectoral BT (OSPBT) techniques via interference screw (IS) or single-suture suture anchor (SSSA) fixation using radiostereometric analysis.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

Distal migration of the biceps tendon after OSPBT with a polyetheretherketone IS, OSPBT with 1 SSSA, ASPBT with polyetheretherketone IS, and ASPBT with 2 SSSAs was measured prospectively. Patients with symptomatic biceps tendinopathy and preoperative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) including Constant-Murley subjective, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, or Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Upper Extremity scores were included. A tantalum bead was sutured on the proximal end of the long head of the biceps tendon before fixation of tendon tissue. Anteroposterior radiographs were performed immediately postoperatively, at 1 week, and at 3 months. Bead migration was measured, and preoperative PROMs were compared with those at latest follow-up.

RESULTS

Of 115 patients, 94 (82%) were available for final follow-up. IS fixation yielded the least tendon migration with no difference between the open and arthroscopic approaches (4.31 vs 5.04 mm; P = .70). Fixation with 1 suture anchor demonstrated significantly greater migration than that achieved with an IS at both 1 week (6.47 vs 0.1 mm, 6.47 vs 1.75 mm, P < .001;) and 3 months (14.76 vs 4.31 mm, 14.76 vs 5.04 mm, P < .001) postoperatively. Two-suture anchor fixation yielded significantly greater migration than IS fixation at 1 week (7.02 vs 0.1 mm, P < .001; 7.02 vs 1.75 mm, P = .003) but not 3 months postoperatively (8.06 vs 4.31 mm, P = .10; 8.06 vs 5.04 mm, P = .07). Four patients with suture anchor fixation (3 patients in the OSPBT 1 SSSA group, 9.4%, and 1 patient in the ASPBT 2 SSSAs group, 3.8%) developed a Popeye deformity, whereas no Popeye deformities occurred in the IS groups. Mean 3-month bead migration in patients with and without a Popeye deformity was 60.8 and 11.2 mm, respectively (P < .0001). PROMs did not differ among groups at final follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Interference screw fixation yielded the least tendon migration whether achieved arthroscopically or open. The available data indicated that fixation with 1 SSSA but not 2 SSSAs resulted in significantly greater migration than that achieved with an IS. Despite variations in tendon migration, PROMs were similar among all groups. When SSSAs are used, tendon migration may be minimized by using ≥2 anchors.

Depressive and Anxiety Disorders Increase Risk for Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Pain Following Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Biceps Tenodesis

Purpose

To evaluate factors associated with postoperative anterior shoulder pain following arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (ABT) and to determine the clinical impact of postoperative anterior shoulder pain.

Methods

A retrospective study of patients that underwent ABT between 2016 and 2020 was conducted. Groups were categorized by the presence (ASP+) or absence (ASP-) of postoperative anterior shoulder pain. Patient-reported outcomes (American Shoulder and Elbow score [ASES], visual analog scale [VAS] for pain, subjective shoulder value [SSV]), strength, range of motion, and complication rates were analyzed. Differences between continuous and categorical variables were tested with two-sample t-tests and chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests, respectively. Variables collected at different postoperative timepoints were analyzed using mixed models with post hoc comparisons when significant interactions were detected.

Results

A total of 461 (47 ASP+, 414 ASP-) patients were included. A statistically significant lower mean age was observed in the ASP+ group (P < .001). A statistically significant higher prevalence of major depressive disorder (MDD) (P = .03) or any anxiety disorder (P = .002) was observed in the ASP+ group. Prescription medication with psychotropic medications (P = .01) was significantly more prevalent in the ASP+ group. No significant differences were observed in the proportion of individuals reaching the minimal clinical important difference (MCID) for ASES, VAS, or SSV between groups.

Conclusions

A pre-existing diagnosis of major depressive disorder or any anxiety disorder, as well as the use of psychotropic medications was associated with postoperative anterior shoulder pain following ABT. Other factors associated with anterior shoulder pain included younger age, participation in physical therapy before surgery, and lower rate of concomitant rotator cuff repair or subacromial decompression. Although the proportion of individuals reaching MCID did not differ between groups, the presence of anterior shoulder pain after ABT resulted in prolonged recovery, inferior PROs, and a higher incidence of repeat surgical procedures. The decision to perform ABT in patients diagnosed with MDD or anxiety should be carefully considered, given the correlation to postoperative anterior shoulder pain and inferior outcomes.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective case-control study.

Soft Anchors for Rotator Cuff Repair: A Review

»

All-suture anchors or so-called "soft" anchors, initially adapted for labral repairs, have increased in popularity for use in rotator cuff repair because of their smaller size, decreased occupation of the footprint, improved points of fixation, ease of use, and ease of revision.

»

In limited series, soft anchors have demonstrated equivalent biomechanical and clinical performance compared with hard body anchors for rotator cuff repair.

»

Perianchor cyst formation can occur with both hard body and soft anchors.

»

Biomechanical and clinical data support aiming for vertical angles of insertion for soft anchors.

Arthroscopic repair of rotator cuff injury with bioabsorbable suture anchor vs. all-suture anchor: a non-inferiority study

BACKGROUND

Compare all-suture anchors to traditional anchors through clinical and radiological evaluation at pre-established end-points.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a two-arms non-inferiority study on all-suture anchor (2.3 iconix™, Stryker) device with respect to traditional anchor (5.5 healix Advance™ BR, Depuy/Mitek) device under unpaired samples with size equal to 30 patients per group, all suffering from supraspinatus tendon rupture. We administrated DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand); constant; and SST (Simple Shoulder Test) questionnaires in pre-operative, 3 ± 1 months post-intervention and 8 ± 1 months post-intervention. Questionnaires scores were the primary outcome. We also evaluated RMI at 3 and at 8 months after surgery to assess the presence of oedema or any loosening of the implant.

RESULTS

All-suture anchor approach has been proven to have non-inferior performances with respect to traditional anchor approach, according to questionnaires scores at the 3-month endpoint. We observed 26 patients with oedema by MRI (18 in control group, 6 in experimental group). In the 8-month endpoint we found persistent edema in 12 patients (all treated with healix), 2 had mobilitazions (healix), 10 had partial retears (8 healix, 2 iconix) and 1 implant failure (healix).

CONCLUSIONS

All suture devices have clinical and functional results comparable to traditional devices, while they tend to give fewer complications in terms of bone edema, loosening and retear rate. The effectiveness of all-suture devices should be further investigated in rotator cuff suture arthroscopic revision surgery, given the advantages they offer.

Modified Lemaire Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis With the Iliotibial Band Strip Fixed on the Femoral Cortical Surface Reduces Laxity and Causes Less Overconstraint in the Anterolateral Lesioned Knee: A Biomechanical Study

PURPOSE

To compare the biomechanical effects of femoral cortical surface fixation and intra-tunnel fixation in modified Lemaire tenodesis on the restoration of native kinematics in anterolateral structure-deficient knees.

METHODS

Eight fresh-frozen cadaveric knees were mounted in a knee-customized jig to evaluate anterior translation in anterior load and internal rotation degree in internal rotation torque at 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90°, as well as anterolateral translation (ALT) in a simulated pivot-shift test at 0°, 15°, 30°, and 45°. Kinematic tests were performed in the following states: intact; anterolateral knee lesion (AL-Les); modified Lemaire lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) with the femoral iliotibial band (ITB) strip fixed on the cortical surface (cortical fixation), deep to the lateral collateral ligament (LCL) (deep LET-C); and LET with the femoral ITB strip fixed into a tunnel (intra-tunnel fixation), deep to the LCL (deep LET-IT) or superficial to the LCL (superficial LET-IT). The knee kinematic changes in the AL-Les state and the 3 LET states were compared with each other, with the intact state as the baseline.

RESULTS

In the AL-Les state, the increased anterior translation instabilities were significantly mitigated by the 3 LETs at 30°, 60°, and 90° (all P < .001), with overconstraint observed in both the deep LET-IT and superficial LET-IT states at 60° (P = .047 and P < .001, respectively) and 90° (both P < .001). Similarly, the 3 LETs significantly reduced the internal rotation instabilities in the AL-Les state at all flexion angles. The superficial LET-IT state overconstrained the knee at 60° (P = .009) and 90° (P < .001) during internal rotation torque, and the deep LET-IT state did so at 60° (P = .012). Furthermore, the ALT instabilities found in the AL-Les state were significantly reduced by the 3 LETs during the simulated pivot-shift test. At 30° and 45°, these LET states resulted in overconstraint when compared with the intact state, but the superficial LET-IT state (P < .001) or deep LET-IT state (P = .016) presented a larger overconstraint than that in the deep LET-C at 45°, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The 3 Lemaire LET procedures evaluated reduced the anterior, internal rotational, and ALT laxities in AL-Les knees and restored these parameters to the native baseline of the intact state at most flexion angles. However, in deep flexion, some overconstraint occurred in all LETs when compared with the intact state, of which the deep LET-C state resulted in less overconstraint in anterior translation and internal rotation than the deep LET-IT and superficial LET-IT states.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This biomechanical study supports using the femoral cortical fixation technique to fix the ITB strip in the modified Lemaire LET, which similarly improves knee kinematic stability and causes less overconstraint compared with conventional intra-tunnel fixation. These findings need more verification in clinical scenarios.

Dynamic Anterior Stabilization Using Transosseous Bone Tunnel Technique With the Adjustable Loop Length Cortical Button Incorporating High-Strength Suture Augmentation for Recurrent Shoulder Instability

Dynamic anterior stabilization using the long head of the biceps tendon is a recently described technique in the management of recurrent shoulder dislocation with subcritical bone loss. This technique involves the transfer of the long head of the biceps to the glenoid, providing sling and hammock effect. The long head of the biceps (LHB) tendon fixation can be accomplished with a variety of implants. We present a modified fixation technique of LHB tendon using transosseous bone tunnel with the adjustable loop length cortical button, incorporating high-strength suture augmentation device in a patient with recurrent glenohumeral instability with limited glenoid bone loss and an engaging Hill-Sachs defect in the humeral head.

All-Suture Suspensory Button Has Similar Biomechanical Performance to Metal Suspensory Button for Onlay Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis

Purpose

To evaluate the maximal load at failure, cyclic displacement, and stiffness of onlay subpectoral biceps tenodesis (BT) with an intramedullary unicortical metal button (MB) versus a unicortical all-suture button (ASB).

Methods

Eighteen matched paired human cadaveric proximal humeri were randomly allocated for subpectoral BT with either ASB or MB using a high-strength suture. Specimens were tested on a servohydraulic mechanical testing apparatus under cyclic load for 1,000 cycles and then loaded to failure. The clamp was then adjusted to isolate the suture-anchor point interface and loaded to failure. Maximal load to failure, displacement, and stiffness were compared.

Results

There was no significant difference between groups in stiffness, displacement, or yield load. The maximal load to failure for the MB was greater than the ASB (347.6 ± 74.1N vs 266.5 ± 69.3N, P = .047). Eight specimens in each group failed by suture pull-through on the tendon. When the suture-anchor point interface was isolated, there was no significant difference in maximal load at failure (MB 586.5 ± 215.8N vs ASB 579.6 ± 255.9N, P = .957).

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that the MB and ASB have similar biomechanical performance when used in subpectoral BT. Although the MB showed statistically significant greater maximal load to failure, there was no difference between the MB and ASB when the suture-tendon interface was eliminated. Suture pull-through was the most common mode of failure for both implants, underscoring the importance of the suture-tendon interface.

Clinical Relevance

Fixation techniques for the treatment of long head of the biceps brachii tenodesis continue to evolve. The use of an all-suture suspensory button has advantages, but it is important to understand if this implant is a biomechanically suitable alternative to a metal suspensory button.

The high resistance loop (H-loop) technique used for all-inside arthroscopic knotless suprapectoral biceps tenodesis: A case series

Introduction

Suprapectoral tenodesis is a common technique for the treatment of long head biceps tendon lesions. However, so far, there is no gold standard treatment in all-inside arthroscopy. The purpose of the present study was to introduce and evaluate the functional outcomes of an innovative, all-inside arthroscopic high resistance loop (H-loop, high resistance to tissue cutout and 360° grasping of the tendon) technique for long head of biceps (LHB) tenodesis.

Method

From September 2020 to March 2022, a series of cases of 32 consecutive patients (28 rotator cuff tear with LHBT pathology and 4 superior labrum anterior-posterior (SLAP) tears which including 2 type II and 2 type IV) who received LHB tenodesis using all-inside arthroscopic high resistance loop technique were included in this study. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon Score (ASES), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Simple Shoulder Test Score (SST), Constant–Murley scores, and University of California at Los Angeles Scoring System (UCLA) were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients in preoperative and final follow-up. Meanwhile, postoperative complications were also observed.

Result

32 patients (14 women and 18 men, average age was 55.7 years) underwent all-inside arthroscopic knotless suprapectoral biceps tenodesis using the H-Loop stitch technique. The mean time of follow-up was 16.2 ± 2.6 months. The ASES, VAS, Constant–Murley, SST, and UCLA scores improved from 51.5 ± 15.8, 5.5 ± 1.6, 57.8 ± 14.7, 5.0 ± 2.8, and 16.1 ± 3.8 preoperatively, to 89.1 ± 7.5, 1.0 ± 0.8, 87.3 ± 5.5, 10.4 ± 1.5, and 31.3 ± 2.6 in the last follow-up, respectively (p < 0.001). During the follow-up, no patients in this study experienced postoperative complications such as infection of the wound, injury of nerves, and hardware failure; no patients required revision after their operation. In addition, none of the patients had cramping or a “Popeye” deformity during follow-up.

Conclusion

This article presents an innovative, all-arthroscopic H-loop technique for LHB tenodesis. This technique for LHB tenodesis showed favorable functional and cosmetic outcomes, as well as high satisfaction rates. Due to its simplicity of operation and satisfactory preliminary clinical outcomes, H-loop technique is perhaps another option to choose in all-inside arthroscopic LHB tenodesis.

Biomechanical Comparison of a Novel Multiplanar, Perpendicular Whipstitch With the Krackow Stitch and Standard Commercial Whipstitch

Background:

Using alternating orthogonal suture throws with the looped whipstitch technique may allow enhanced suture fixation.

Hypothesis:

It was hypothesized that this novel multiplanar, perpendicular looped whipstitch (MP) technique would have improved biomechanical properties compared with the standard looped whipstitch (WS) and Krackow stitch (KS).

Study Design:

Controlled laboratory study.

Methods:

A total of 30 cadaveric tibialis anterior tendons were randomly assigned into 3 groups of 10. Tendons were secured to a custom clamp, and the other end was sutured using 1 of 3 techniques: the KS, WS, or novel MP. The MP was performed with alternating orthogonal throws starting right to left, then front to back, left to right, and back to front. Each technique used 4 passes of No. 2 FiberWire spaced 5 mm apart and ending 10 mm from the tendon end. Tendons were preloaded to 5 N, pretensioned to 50 N at 100 mm/min for 3 cycles, returned to 5 N for 1 minute, cycled from 5 to 100 N at 200 mm/min for 100 cycles, and then loaded to failure at 20 mm/min. Elongation was recorded after pretensioning and cycling and was measured both across the suture-tendon interface and from the base of the suture-tendon interface to markings on the suture limbs (construct elongation). One-way analyses of variance were performed, with Bonferroni post hoc analysis when appropriate.

Results:

There were no differences in cross-sectional area or stiffness among the 3 techniques. The ultimate load for WS (183.33 ± 57.44 N) was less compared with both MP (270.76 ± 39.36 N) and KS (298.90 ± 25.94 N) (P ≤ .001 for both). There was less construct elongation for KS compared with WS and MP for total displacement, measured from pretensioning to the end of cycling (P < .001). All 3 techniques saw a decrease in length (shortening) at the suture-tendon interface during testing. There was more shortening at the suture-tendon interface for WS compared with KS (P = .006).

Conclusion:

The KS appears superior, as it maximized strength while minimizing construct elongation or graft shortening. The ultimate load of the MP technique was greater than that of the standard technique but not significantly different from that of the KS technique.

Clinical Relevance:

The KS is preferred. If using a WS, multiplanar, perpendicular passes should be considered.

Reliable Clinical and Sonographic Outcomes of Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Using an All-Suture Anchor Onlay Technique

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical outcomes and structural integrity of primary subpectoral biceps tenodesis using an all-suture anchor onlay technique for long head of the biceps (LHB) tendon pathology.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective case series with prospectively collected data of patients who underwent primary, isolated subpectoral biceps tenodesis with a single all-suture anchor onlay fixation between March 2017 and March 2019. Outcomes were recorded at a minimum follow-up of 12 months based on assessments of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, LHB score, and elbow flexion strength and supination strength measurements. The integrity of the tenodesis construct was evaluated using ultrasound.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients were available for clinical and ultrasound examination at a mean follow-up of 18 ± 5 months. The mean ASES score significantly improved from 51.0 ± 14.2 points preoperatively to 89.8 ± 10.5 points postoperatively (P < .001). The minimal clinically important difference for the ASES score was 8.7 points, which was exceeded by 31 patients (91.2%). The mean postoperative LHB score was 92.2 ± 8.3 points. Regarding subcategories, an average of 47.2 ± 6.3 points was reached for "pain/cramps"; 26.4 ± 6.1 points, "cosmesis"; and 18.6 ± 2.6 points, "elbow flexion strength." Both elbow flexion strength and supination strength were similar compared with the nonoperated side (P = .169 and P = .210, respectively). In 32 patients, ultrasound examination showed an intact tenodesis construct, whereas 2 patients (5.9%) sustained failure of the all-suture anchor fixation requiring revision.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary subpectoral biceps tenodesis using an all-suture anchor onlay technique for pathology of the LHB tendon provides reliable clinical results and a relatively low failure rate (5.9%).

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series.

Editorial Commentary: All-Suture Anchor for Shoulder Biceps Tenodesis Results in Excellent Outcomes

Patients have a strong preference for biceps tenodesis rather than a tenotomy in both Eastern and Western countries, regardless of age, and the annual number of biceps tenodeses has significantly increased in recent years. Previous studies have supported the use of suture anchors in biceps tenodesis. All-suture anchors are also a viable option because of their comparable biomechanical properties and the lower risk of humerus fractures. Recent research has evaluated the clinical outcomes after subpectoral biceps tenodesis using all-suture anchors. Encouragingly, satisfactory clinical outcomes have been reported, making this technique more attractive in clinical practice.

Arthroscopic Single-Portal Suprapectoral Biceps Tenodesis With All-Suture Anchor

Tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon can be performed through arthroscopic and open techniques with various fixation methods and at different locations on the humerus. Many techniques have been described, with controversy surrounding the advantages and disadvantages of each. In this Technical Note, we describe an all-arthroscopic, intra-articular, single-portal, suprapectoral biceps tenodesis with an all-suture anchor. This technique also allows for suture passage through the biceps tendon before tenotomy to ensure proper maintenance of the length-tension relationship of the biceps musculotendinous unit.

Editorial Commentary: All-Suture Anchors Are Evidence-Based and Biomechanically Sound but Require Additional Clinical Outcomes Evaluation

All-suture anchors (ASA) have gained great interest in our community, and multiple biomechanical studies have investigated their primary stability. Equal stability with similar load to failure has been observed for ASA in comparison to current standard implants. Although important biomechanical observations have been made, clinical outcomes are rare for ASA. Consequently, there is a lack of evidence for the clinical benefits of ASA.

Management of proximal biceps tendon pathology

The long head of the biceps tendon is widely recognized as an important pain generator, especially in anterior shoulder pain and dysfunction with athletes and working individuals. The purpose of this review is to provide a current understanding of the long head of the biceps tendon anatomy and its surrounding structures, function, and relevant clinical information such as evaluation, treatment options, and complications in hopes of helping orthopaedic surgeons counsel their patients. An understanding of the long head of the biceps tendon anatomy and its surrounding structures is helpful to determine normal function as well as pathologic injuries that stem proximally. The biceps-labral complex has been identified and broken down into different regions that can further enhance a physician’s knowledge of common anterior shoulder pain etiologies. Although various physical examination maneuvers exist meant to localize the anterior shoulder pain, the lack of specificity requires orthopaedic surgeons to rely on patient history, advanced imaging, and diagnostic injections in order to determine the patient’s next steps. Nonsurgical treatment options such as anti-inflammatory medications, physical therapy, and ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injections should be utilized before entertaining surgical treatment options. If surgery is needed, the three options include biceps tenotomy, biceps tenodesis, or superior labrum anterior to posterior repair. Specifically for biceps tenodesis, recent studies have analyzed open vs arthroscopic techniques, the ideal location of tenodesis with intra-articular, suprapectoral, subpectoral, extra-articular top of groove, and extra-articular bottom of groove approaches, and the best method of fixation using interference screws, suture anchors, or cortical buttons. Orthopaedic surgeons should be aware of the complications of each procedure and respond accordingly for each patient. Once treated, patients often have good to excellent clinical outcomes and low rates of complications.

Can a Two Simple Stitches Method Provide Secure Fixation Strength in Biceps Tenodesis?: Biomechanical Evaluation of Various Suture Techniques

Background

The purpose of this study was to compare the initial fixation strength between four different suture methods for the long head of the biceps.

Methods

Forty-eight fresh frozen porcine flexor hallucis longus tendons (mean width at suture site, 8.5 ± 0.9 mm) and phalanx bones were randomly assigned to one of the four arthroscopic biceps tenodesis techniques: simple stitch (SS), mattress suture (MS), lasso-loop (LL), and two simple stitches (2SS). A biceps tenodesis was performed according to the four techniques using all-suture type suture anchors (1.9-mm SUTUREFIX anchor with No. 1 ULTRABRAID sutures). Biomechanical evaluations were performed to test load to failure (N), stiffness (N/mm), stress (N/m²), and mode of failure.

Results

As for the SS, MS, LL, and 2SS, the mean load to failure was 50.9 ± 14.61 N, 82.3 ± 24.8 N, 116.2 ± 26.7 N, and 130.8 ± 22.5 N (p < 0.001), respectively; mean stiffness was 6.1 ± 1.3 N/mm, 6.7 ± 2.6 N/mm, 7.8 ± 1.4 N/mm, and 8.1 ± 4.2 N/mm, respectively (p = 0.258); and mean stress was 0.7 ± 0.3 N/m², 1.4 ± 0.8 N/m², 2.9 ± 0.7 N/m², and 2.7 ± 0.8 N/m², respectively (p < 0.001). All the failures happened by the suture cutting through the tendon along its longitudinal fibers.

Conclusions

Neither the SS nor the MS method was enough to securely fix the biceps tendon with a significantly lower mechanical strength; however, the 2SS method showed similar initial fixation strength as the LL technique.

Current Controversies and Decision-Making in the Management of Biceps Pathologies

»

Biceps tendon pathologies include a spectrum of injuries that range from mild tendinosis to complete tendon rupture.

»

Tendinosis, the most common pathology, occurs more frequently with age and is likely related to chronic degeneration. On the other side of the spectrum of severity lies a rupture of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT), which may be accompanied by injury to the glenoid labrum.

»

Superior labral anterior-posterior (SLAP) tears are frequently associated with biceps pathology. Surgical management for injuries of the bicipital-labral complex includes biceps tenodesis or tenotomy and SLAP repair. A consensus as to which of these procedures is the optimal choice has not been reached, and management may ultimately depend on patient-specific characteristics.

»

Due to the relatively low incidence of distal biceps tendon rupture, agreement on the optimal management strategy has not been reached. Surgical repair, or reconstruction in the case of a chronic rupture, is often chosen. However, nonoperative management has also been utilized in older, less-active patients.

Mini-Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Using a Suture Anchor with Bone-Bridge Backup

Pathology of the long head of the biceps tendon is a known cause of anterior shoulder pain. Current surgical management options include tenotomy and tenodesis. Tenodesis can be performed arthroscopically or as an open procedure. Arthroscopic tenodesis typically uses a suprapectoral attachment, which may fail to address tendon pathology in the bicipital groove. Open tenodesis carries iatrogenic risk to neurovascular structures and a fracture risk while drilling, as well as the morbidity of an open procedure. This technique paper describes a mini-open subpectoral approach using a suture anchor and bone bridge backup for dual fixation. Use of a suture anchor instead of an interference screw reduces drill hole diameter reducing the risk of iatrogenic humeral fracture. Dual fixation provides a robust repair which may be of use for athletic patients desiring an accelerated recovery.

The rate and reporting of fracture after biceps tenodesis: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this systematic review was to (1) define the cumulative humerus fracture rate after BT and (2) compare how often fracture rate was reported compared to other complications.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using the PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

39 studies reported complications and 30 reported no complications. Of the 39 studies that reported complications, 5 studies reported fracture after BT (n = 669, cumulative incidence of 0.53%). The overall non-fracture complication rate was 12.9%.

DISCUSSION

Due to the relatively high incidence of fracture, surgeons should ensure that this complication is disclosed to patients undergoing BT.

[Effectiveness comparison of arthroscopic intertubercular groove and open subpectoral tenodesis for long head of biceps tendon tendinopathy]

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of arthroscopic intertubercular groove and open subpectoral tenodesis in treatment of long head of biceps tendon (LHBT) tendinopathy.

METHODS

A clinical data of 80 patients with LHBT tendinopathy who were admitted between June 2013 and May 2017 and met the selection criteria was retrospectively analyzed. After cutting LHBT under arthroscopy, the arthroscopic intertubercular groove tenodesis was performed in 40 cases (group A) and open subpectoral tenodesis was performed in 40 cases (group B). There was no significant difference in the gender, age, side of the affected shoulder joint, disease duration, and preoperative pain visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Constant score, American Society of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery (ASES) score, Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score, LHBT score (LHBS) between the two groups ( P>0.05). The operation time and the scores of shoulder joint pain and function at 12 months after operation were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The operation time was (3.6±2.5) minutes in group A and (8.5±2.3) minutes in group B, showing a significant difference ( t=18.584, P=0.000). The incisions of the two groups healed by first intention, and there was no complication such as infection or thrombosis. All patients were followed up. The follow-up time was 24-30 months (mean, 26.0 months) in group A and 24-31 months (mean, 26.0 months) in group B. Both Speed test and Yergason test were negative at 3 months after operation. MRI showed that there was no obvious effusion around the LHTB and no dislocation of LHTB. At 12 months after operation, the VAS score, Constant score, ASES score, DASH score, and LHBS score of the two groups all improved when compared with preoperative ones ( P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in the differences before and after operation between the two groups ( P>0.05). No Popeye sign appeared during the follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The arthroscopic intertubercular groove and open subpectoral tenodesis can effectively relieve shoulder pain and improve function, but the former has shorter operation time and less trauma.

Increased Load to Failure in Biceps Tenodesis With All-Suture Suture Anchor Compared With Interference Screw: A Cadaveric Biomechanical Study

PURPOSE

To compare the biomechanical characteristics of a single radially expanding all-suture anchor with an interference screw for open subpectoral long head of biceps tendon (LHBT) tenodesis.

METHODS

Eighteen fresh-frozen matched-pair human cadaveric humeri were used for this biomechanical study. The matched pair humeri were randomly assigned into 2 experimental biceps tenodesis groups: conventional interference screw (CIS) or all-suture suture anchor (ASSA). Open subpectoral LHBT tenodesis was then performed and biomechanical testing was performed using a servohydraulic test frame. A preload of 5 N was applied for 2 minutes before cyclic loading. Displacement was recorded at cycle 300 (D300) and cycle 500 (D500) and at ultimate failure. Data recorded included displacement, load to failure, displacement at failure. Paired t test was used for analysis.

RESULTS

Decreased displacement was observed for the CIS group at D300 (1.67 ± 0.57 mm vs 3.35 ± 2.24 mm; P = .04), D500 (2.00 ± 0.76 mm vs 3.87 ± 2.20 mm; P = .04), and at failure (5.17 ± 3.05 mm vs 10.76 ± 2.66 mm; P < .001). Load to failure was lower in CIS specimens (170 ± 24.5 N vs 217.8 ± 51.54 N; P = .02). Failure in each case was tendon pullout for all CIS specimens; in ASSA 6 specimens failed as the suture pulled through the tendon, 2 specimens failed by suture breakage. No difference in stiffness was observed between the 2 groups (CIS = 98.33 ± 22.98 N/m vs ASSA = 75.94 ± 44.83 N/m; P = .20).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found that open subpectoral biceps tenodesis performed with an ASSA construct results in increased load to failure as compared with CIS. However, the CIS did demonstrate decreased displacement as compared to ASSA in this cadaveric biomechanical study.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

ASSA and CIS at time zero provide fixation as indicated by the provider intraoperatively for LHBT tenodesis. ASSA, however, does remove less cortical bone than does CIS and therefore produces a smaller stress riser in the proximal humerus. Further testing as to the integrity of ASSA is warranted to determine the integrity of the tenodesis with cyclical loading.

All-Suture Anchors in Orthopaedic Surgery: Design, Rationale, Biomechanical Data, and Clinical Outcomes

All-suture anchors (ASAs) are a relatively new alternative to traditional suture anchors, comprised of sutures, suture tapes, or ribbons woven through a soft sleeve. These novel anchors are typically smaller than traditional anchors, allowing for more anchors to be used in the same amount of space or for use when bone stock is limited, for example, in revision settings. They can be inserted through curved guides to reach more challenging locations, and they have thus far had similar loads to failure during biomechanical testing as traditional anchors. However, these benefits must be weighed against new challenges. When using ASAs, care must be taken to fully deploy and seat the anchor against cortical bone for optimal fixation and to prevent gap formation. Furthermore, decortication, often performed to enhance the biologic environment for soft-tissue healing, may weaken the cortical bone on which ASA fixation depends on. The purpose of this article is to provide insight on the designs, advantages, and potential disadvantages associated with ASAs, as well as review the available biomechanical and clinical data.

Editorial Commentary: What Is More Important: Strength or Displacement? Findings of All-Suture Anchor Versus Interference Screw for Biceps Tenodesis

Tendinopathy of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHB) encompasses a range of pathology, including inflammatory tendinitis to degenerative tendinosis that can lead to pain, as well as instability of the LHB and its surrounding stabilizers. Accordingly, tenodesis of the LHB during shoulder surgery has been increasingly cited in the literature as a viable surgical option for the treatment of LHB pathology. While current treatment options include the use of multiple devices for tenodesis of the LHB, there remains a paucity of literature that investigates the biomechanical advantages of all-suture anchor devices compared to interference screws.

Editorial Commentary: All-Suture Anchors Are Small, Easier to Revise, and Biomechanically Equivalent to Conventional Implants: They Are the Way of the Future

All-suture anchors (ASAs) show biomechanical equivalence to conventional implants. The smaller size and easier ability to revise are important advantages of ASAs. A more vertical insertion angle increases ASA pullout strength. Proper depth of insertion is required to optimally seat ASAs on cortical bone. ASA pullout strength also results from compression of cancellous bone between the anchor and the cortex, and appropriately pretensioning the suture before loading is critical. A larger anchor (and a higher the number of sutures loaded per anchor) leads to a higher pullout strength of the anchor. Understanding the correct implantation technique is important to optimize the strength of ASAs.

Short-Term Clinical and Return-to-Work Outcomes After Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Onlay Biceps Tenodesis With a Single Suture Anchor

Purpose

To describe short-term outcomes of arthroscopic suprapectoral onlay biceps tenodesis using a single all-suture anchor with respect to validated outcome measures, return to work, objective strength and motion data, and biceps-specific testing.

Methods

This study describes a consecutive series of patients undergoing arthroscopic suprapectoral onlay biceps tenodesis performed by a single surgeon from January to December 2017. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively with the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons questionnaire, visual analog scale, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey, and 12-Item Short Form survey, and return-to-work survey. Postoperative strength, range of motion, and biceps-specific testing was also performed.

Results

This study included 50 patients (26 men and 24 women), with an average age (± standard deviation) of 50.1 ± 10.9 years and average final follow-up of 21.3 ± 8.5 months. Among employed patients, 32 (71.1%) returned to work at an average of 4.6 ± 2.3 months. Light-duty workers returned to work at a significantly greater rate (85.7% vs 33.3%, P = .016) and in less time (2.6 ± 2.0 months vs 6.8 ± 4.2 months) than heavy-duty workers. No differences were found between operative and nonoperative sides in the biceps apex distance (P = .636) or range of motion in elbow flexion and extension (P > .9 for both), supination (P = .192), or pronation (P = .343) postoperatively. Strength in elbow flexion (P = .002), as well as shoulder forward elevation (P < .001) and external rotation (P < .001), increased postoperatively. Significant patient-reported improvements were noted in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, visual analog scale pain score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, Constant-Murley score, and Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey and 12-Item Short Form physical component scores (P ≤ .001 for all). A postoperative Popeye deformity developed in 5 patients (10%).

Conclusions

Arthroscopic suprapectoral onlay biceps tenodesis with a single all-suture anchor can provide overall excellent clinical outcomes regarding strength, motion, and validated patient-reported outcome questionnaires. Return to occupational activities may be less predictable and more prolonged for heavy laborers. A small number of patients may experience cosmetic deformity postoperatively.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic case series.

High-Tensile Strength Tapes Show Greater Ultimate Failure Load and Less Stiffness Than High-Tensile Strength Sutures in a Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Porcine Model

Purpose

To compare the biomechanical properties of high-tensile strength tape and a high-tensile strength suture in subpectoral biceps tenodesis using a suture anchor in a porcine tendon model.

Methods

A total of 24 artificial composite (polymer and glass fiber) humeri and porcine flexor profundus tendons were used. Two types of suture materials, high-tensile strength sutures (group S) and high-tensile strength tapes (group T), were evaluated. After we inserted metallic suture anchors with either 2 sutures or tapes 5 cm from the superomedial corner of the greater tuberosity, a Krackow suture technique was used to secure the tendons. After a preload of 5 N for 2 minutes, a cyclic loading test from 5 to 70 N was conducted for 500 cycles. Finally, the specimen was loaded to failure at a rate of 1 mm/s.

Results

There were no significant between-group differences in elongation after cyclic loading and elongation at failure load for group S and group T (P = .977 and .630, respectively). The ultimate failure loads in group T (278.2 ± 54 N) were significantly greater than those in group S (249.4 ± 32 N) (P = .028). In contrast, the stiffness values in group T (28.5 ± 4.0 N/mm) were significantly lower than those in group S (32.3 ± 4.5 N) (P = .028). Ten specimens in group S and 8 specimens in group T failed, with tendons being cut through by the sutures, whereas the other 2 specimens in group S and 4 specimens in group T failed due to suture breakage.

Conclusions

Using high-tensile strength tapes in subpectoral biceps tenodesis using a suture anchor leads to significantly greater ultimate failure load as compared with using high-tensile strength sutures in a porcine model. Although lower levels of stiffness were found in high-tensile strength tape group, the difference in the means were not large between 2 groups.

Clinical Relevance

A strong suture–tendon structure may prevent clinical failure of a subpectoral biceps tenodesis using a suture anchor.

All-suture anchor and unicortical button show comparable biomechanical properties for onlay subpectoral biceps tenodesis

Hypothesis

The purpose of this study was to biomechanically evaluate onlay subpectoral long head of the biceps (LHB) tenodesis with all-suture anchors and unicortical buttons in cadaveric specimens.

Methods

After evaluation of bone mineral density, 18 fresh-frozen, unpaired human cadaveric shoulders were randomly assigned to 2 groups: One group received an onlay subpectoral LHB tenodesis with 1 all-suture anchor, whereas the other group received a tenodesis with 1 unicortical button. The specimens were mounted in a servo-hydraulic material testing system. Tendons were initially loaded from 5 N to 100 N for 5000 cycles at 1 Hz. Displacement of the repair constructs was observed with optical tracking. After cyclic loading, each specimen was loaded to failure at a rate of 1 mm/s.

Results

The mean displacement after cyclic loading was 6.77 ± 3.15 mm in the all-suture anchor group and 8.41 ± 3.17 mm in the unicortical button group (P = not significant). The mean load to failure was 278.05 ± 38.77 N for all-suture anchor repairs and 291.36 ± 49.69 N for unicortical button repairs (P = not significant). The most common mode of failure in both groups was LHB tendon tearing. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups regarding specimen age (58.33 ± 4.37 years vs. 58.78 ± 5.33 years) and bone mineral density (0.50 ± 0.17 g/cm² vs. 0.44 ± 0.19 g/cm²).

Conclusion

All-suture anchors and unicortical buttons are biomechanically equivalent in displacement and load-to-failure testing for LHB tenodesis. All-suture anchors can be considered a validated alternative for onlay subpectoral LHB tenodesis.

Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Biceps Tenodesis: The "Double Secure Loop Technique" Using an All-Suture Anchor and an Arthroscopic Suture Passer

Although the long head of the biceps tendon is known to resist superior movement of the humeral head in the shoulder joint and assist flexion and supination of the elbow joint, its exact function remains unclear. Moreover, the ideal treatment of lesions of the long head of the biceps tendon such as tendinitis, subluxation, dislocation, and partial or complete rupture remains controversial. Various tenodesis methods have been introduced by many authors. This technique-based article aims to discuss tenodesis as an option for biceps tendon fixation.

Editorial Commentary: Size Matters: Biomechanical Analysis of All-Suture Suture-Anchor Fixation Compared to Conventional Suture Anchors and Interference Screws for Biceps Tenodesis

Anchors and screws demonstrate similar fixation properties for shoulder biceps tenodesis allowing healing, but anchors requiring smaller drill holes reduce the risk of postoperative fractures under torsional stress. Clinicians could create the smallest possible holes in the humerus, especially in throwing athletes who create large torsional stresses.