Subcutaneous rupture of the triceps tendon with avulsion fracture of the olecranon spur

Distal triceps transosseous cruciate versus suture anchor repair using equal constructs: a biomechanical comparison

BACKGROUND/HYPOTHESIS

Suture anchor-based repair has been advocated for repair of distal triceps avulsion, but previous models have used an unequal number of sutures across the repair site. We hypothesized that there would be no difference in triceps tendon displacement between gold standard repair with transosseous cruciate bone tunnels and suture anchor repair with an equal number of sutures in the constructs.

METHODS

The triceps tendon footprint was measured in 20 cadaveric elbows (10 matched pairs), and a distal triceps tendon rupture was created. The specimens in each pair were randomly assigned to transosseous cruciate repair or knotless, double-row, anatomic footprint, suture anchor repair. Specimens underwent cyclic loading to 1500 cycles and then load to failure. Footprint uncoverage was measured at 1500 cycles. Data for medial and lateral triceps tendon displacement, footprint uncoverage, and failure load were obtained.

RESULTS

Triceps displacement did not differ significantly between the transosseous cruciate and the suture anchor repair group at 1500 cycles on the medial (3.6 ±  0.9 mm vs. 4.3 ± 1.6 mm [mean ± standard deviation], respectively; P = .27) and lateral side (3.1 ± 1.2 mm vs. 2.0 ± 1.2 mm, respectively; P = .06). No other differences were found between the constructs.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

Transosseous cruciate distal triceps repair and knotless double-row suture anchor repair using constructs with an equal number of sutures showed no significant difference in tendon displacement at 1500 loading cycles. These findings suggest that the biomechanical strength of an all-suture construct is not different from that of suture anchors for repair of distal triceps avulsions.

Endoscopic Extrabursal Excision of Olecranon Spur

Olecranon spur is a common underlying clinical problem in patients with inflammatory conditions such as triceps tendonitis, olecranon bursitis, and gout. It is often managed conservatively. Conventionally, symptomatic olecranon spurs that have failed conservative management are excised along with the overlying bursa using an open technique. We describe an endoscopic extrabursal technique, where the spur is dissected out and excised in its entirety under endoscopic vision. Using this technique, a satisfactory view is achieved with less morbidity compared with the open excision; it also avoids a wound over the sensitive skin over the olecranon.

The olecranon spur

BACKGROUND

There is very little information for today's clinician on olecranon spurs. In addition, there is some ambiguity in the literature, with the terms "olecranon spur" and "olecranon osteophyte" sometimes being used interchangeably. This review presents the current knowledge about olecranon spur anatomy, pathophysiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, treatment options and their outcomes, as well as clarification of the terms "spur" and "osteophyte".

METHODS

The PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched using the terms "olecranon spur," "olecranon traction spur," and "olecranon osteophyte." The resulting articles were used to find other manuscripts pertaining to the subject.

RESULTS

Very few articles were found as a result of these search criteria and were limited to a few case reports and a study investigating the postoperative outcomes of spur removal. Confusion of the terms "olecranon spur" and "olecranon osteophyte" was noted in 6 of the manuscripts.

CONCLUSIONS

The mechanism of olecranon spur formation has not been confirmed but seems to be similar to that of spurs at other entheses. In addition, the current literature represents a small number of patients and selects only those who required surgical intervention. Three methods of spur resection have been published, and all have good outcomes with small patient numbers and limited follow-up.