Proximal Biceps Tenodesis – Biomechanical Analysis in Sheep: Comparison between Metallic Anchor, Onlay Bioabsorbable Knotless Anchor, and Interference Screw

Abstract

Objective To biomechanically evaluate different fixation devices for the proximal biceps in the humerus of sheep, comparing their fixation strength to failure, tendon displacement, and failure site in each technique.

Methods A total of 27 humerus tests were performed on sheep, separating them into 3 groups: group A with tenodesis with metallic anchors (n = 11), group B with biocomposite knotless devices (n = 8) and group C with metallic interference screws (n = 8), performing tenodesis with the sheep's own biceps, maintaining its native distal insertion. The three methods were submitted to a universal tensile testing machine.

Results There was no statistically significant difference in the strength of fixation until failure and displacement between the tendons fixed by the different techniques. Regarding the pattern of ruptures, it was observed that most ruptures of the metallic anchors occurred at the level of the myotendinous junction, most of the bioabsorbable knotless anchors failed due to slippage of the wire-screw interface, and all interference screws failed via tendon slip.

Conclusion The three techniques with metal anchor, onlay bioabsorbable knotless anchors, and interference screws are largely resistant to tensile loads for long head of the biceps tenodesis in sheep. There was no statistical difference between the three groups. Cyclic load resistance studies can provide more valuable data for comparing groups.

Keywords

biomechanical phenomena - models, animal - orthopedic fixation devices - tenodesis

Financial Support

The authors declare that the present study received no financial support from either public, commercial, or not-for-profit sources.

Ethics

According to law number 11.794/2008, intended for the use of live animals in scientific research and teaching activities, the use of cadavers or parts of animals slaughtered for consumption is not scope of the legislation, and the study is exempt from being approved by the Commission of Ethics in the Use of Animals.

Work carried out at the Orthopedics and Traumatology Service of Hospital São Vicente de Paulo/Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Passo Fundo, RS, Brazil.

Publication History

Received: 08 June 2022

Accepted: 08 October 2022

Article published online:
07 December 2024

• Referências

• 1 Ikemoto RY, Pileggi PE, Murachovsky J. et al. Tenotomia com ou sem tenodese da cabeça longa do bíceps no reparo artroscópico do manguito rotador. Rev Bras Ortop 2012; 47 (06) 736-740
• 2 Geaney LE, Mazzocca AD. Biceps brachii tendon ruptures: a review of diagnosis and treatment of proximal and distal biceps tendon ruptures. Phys Sportsmed 2010; 38 (02) 117-125
• 3 Denard PJ, Dai X, Hanypsiak BT, Burkhart SS. Anatomy of the biceps tendon: implications for restoring physiological length-tension relation during biceps tenodesis with interference screw fixation. Arthroscopy 2012; 28 (10) 1352-1358
• 4 Godinho GG, Mesquita FA, França FdeO, Freitas JM. “Rocambole-Like” Biceps Tenodesis: Technique and Results. Rev Bras Ortop 2015; 46 (06) 691-696
• 5 Nho SJ, Strauss EJ, Lenart BA. et al. Long head of the biceps tendinopathy: diagnosis and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2010; 18 (11) 645-656
• 6 Kerschbaum M, Alt V, Pfeifer C. The All-inside arthroscopic loop tenodesis procedure to treat long head of biceps tendon pathologies. Arthrosc Tech 2019; 8 (12) e1551-e1554
• 7 Patzer T, Kircher J, Krauspe R. All-arthroscopic suprapectoral long head of biceps tendon tenodesis with interference screw-like tendon fixation after modified lasso-loop stitch tendon securing. Arthrosc Tech 2012; 1 (01) e53-e56
• 8 Kilicoglu O, Koyuncu O, Demirhan M. et al. Time-dependent changes in failure loads of 3 biceps tenodesis techniques: in vivo study in a sheep model. Am J Sports Med 2005; 33 (10) 1536-1544
• 9 Lacheta L, Rosenberg SI, Brady AW, Dornan GJ, Millett PJ. Biomechanical Comparison of Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Onlay Techniques. Orthop J Sports Med 2019; 7 (10) 2325967119876276
• 10 Sethi PM, Rajaram A, Beitzel K, Hackett TR, Chowaniec DM, Mazzocca AD. Biomechanical performance of subpectoral biceps tenodesis: a comparison of interference screw fixation, cortical button fixation, and interference screw diameter. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2013; 22 (04) 451-457
• 11 Boileau P, Krishnan SG, Coste JS, Walch G. Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis: a new technique using bioabsorbable interference screw fixation. Tech Shoulder Elbow Surg 2001; 2 (03) 153-165
• 12 Khalid MA, Morris RP, Black N, Maassen NH. Biomechanical Evaluation of Humerus Fracture After Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis With Interference Screw Versus Unicortical Button. Arthroscopy 2020; 36 (05) 1253-1260
• 13 Bigham-Sadegh A, Oryan A. Selection of animal models for pre-clinical strategies in evaluating the fracture healing, bone graft substitutes and bone tissue regeneration and engineering. Connect Tissue Res 2015; 56 (03) 175-194
• 14 AlQahtani SM, Bicknell RT. Outcomes following long head of biceps tendon tenodesis. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2016; 9 (04) 378-387
• 15 Ramos CH, Coelho JC. Avaliação biomecânica da fixação do tendão da cabeça longa do bíceps braquial por três técnicas: modelo em ovinos. Rev Bras Ortop 2017; 52 (01) 52-60
• 16 Jayamoorthy T, Field JR, Costi JJ, Martin DK, Stanley RM, Hearn TC. Biceps tenodesis: a biomechanical study of fixation methods. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2004; 13 (02) 160-164
• 17 Smuin DM, Vannatta E, Ammerman B, Stauch CM, Lewis GS, Dhawan A. Increased load to failure in biceps tenodesis with all-suture suture anchor compared with interference screw: A cadaveric biomechanical study. Arthroscopy 2021; 37 (10) 3016-3021
• 18 Lorbach O, Trennheuser C, Kohn D, Anagnostakos K. The biomechanical performance of a new forked knotless biceps tenodesis compared to a knotless and suture anchor tenodesis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016; 24 (07) 2174-2180
• 19 Lopez-Vidriero E, Costic RS, Fu FH, Rodosky MW. Biomechanical evaluation of 2 arthroscopic biceps tenodeses: double-anchor versus percutaneous intra-articular transtendon (PITT) techniques. Am J Sports Med 2010; 38 (01) 146-152
• 20 Mazzocca AD, Bicos J, Santangelo S, Romeo AA, Arciero RA. The biomechanical evaluation of four fixation techniques for proximal biceps tenodesis. Arthroscopy 2005; 21 (11) 1296-1306
• 21 Uruc V, Ozden R, Dogramacı Y, Kalacı A, Hallaceli H, Küçükdurmaz F. A new anchor augmentation technique with a cancellous screw in osteoporotic rotator cuff repair: an in vitro biomechanical study on sheep humerus specimens. Arthroscopy 2014; 30 (01) 16-21
• 22 Dobke LS, Bonadiman JA, Lopes Junior OV, Saggin PR, Israel CL, de Freitas Spinelli L. Estudo biomecânico de diferentes dispositivos de fixação femoral na reconstrução do ligamento patelofemoral medial em joelhos de suínos. Rev Bras Ortop 2020; 55 (06) 771-777
• 23 Costa RN, Nadal RR, Saggin PRF, Lopes Junior OV, de Freitas Spinelli L, Israel CL. Avaliação biomecânica de diferentes métodos de fixação tibial na reconstrução do ligamento anterolateral em ossos suínos. Rev Bras Ortop 2019; 54 (02) 183-189
• 24 Aslani FJ, Hukins DW, Shepherd DE. Applicability of sheep and pig models for cancellous bone in human vertebral bodies. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2012; 226 (01) 76-78
• 25 Pietschmann MF, Hölzer A, Rösl C. et al. What humeri are suitable for comparative testing of suture anchors? An ultrastructural bone analysis and biomechanical study of ovine, bovine and human humeri and four different anchor types. J Biomech 2010; 43 (06) 1125-1130