Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Revista Chilena de Ortopedia y Traumatología 2024; 65(02): e58-e64
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1787735
Artículo Original | Original Article

Suture Anchors Display Higher Resistance than Interference Screws for Biceps Tenodesis

Article in several languages: español | English
Rodrigo de Marinis
1   Unidad de Hombro y Codo, Departamento de Ortopedia y Traumatología, Facultad de Medicina, Escuela de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
,
Julio J. Contreras 
1   Unidad de Hombro y Codo, Departamento de Ortopedia y Traumatología, Facultad de Medicina, Escuela de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
,
Daniel Paccot
2   Unidad de Hombro y Codo, Clínica Alemana de Santiago, Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile
,
Felipe Palma
3   Laboratorio LIBFE, Escuela de Kinesiología, Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile
,
Pablo Besa
1   Unidad de Hombro y Codo, Departamento de Ortopedia y Traumatología, Facultad de Medicina, Escuela de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
,
Felipe Toro
2   Unidad de Hombro y Codo, Clínica Alemana de Santiago, Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile
,
Rodrigo Guzmán
3   Laboratorio LIBFE, Escuela de Kinesiología, Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile
,
René Pozo
2   Unidad de Hombro y Codo, Clínica Alemana de Santiago, Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective To assess four different fixation techniques for biceps tenodesis.

Materials and Methods A total of 32 fresh frozen sheep shoulders were randomly divided into 4equal groups according to each tenodesis technique: Biotenodesis screw (BTS), SwiveLock tenodesis screw (SLS) (Arthrex, Inc., Naples, FL, United States), triple lasso-loop (TLL), and double lasso-loop (DLL). All tenodesis were performed suprapectorally at the bicipital groove. For interference screws (ISs), no additional knots were added after fixation. All specimens were tested for ultimate load to failure (ULF), and the yield point (YP) was calculated. The mode of failure was recorded for each specimen. The statistical analysis was performed using a Kruskal-Wallis test and the Dunn post-hoc test. Significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results The ULF recorded for each experimental group was as follows: BTS group = 126.2 (range: 94.8–161.1) N; SLS group = 95.8 (range: 75.9–130) N; DLL group = 208.4 (range: 195.3–219.5) N; and TLL group = 261.4 (range: 194.9–306.5) N. The mode of failure for all specimens in the IS groups was tendon pullout from fixation, while specimens in the suture anchor (SA) groups mostly failed by tendon rupture. Both SA techniques showed a significantly higher ULF and YP when compared with each IS technique (p < 0.01). There were no significant differences in terms of the ULF or YP achieved between the use of DLL and of TLL.

Conclusion In the present animal cadaveric testing model, SA techniques demonstrated a higher ULF when compared with knotless IS techniques. Specifically, within the SA techniques, the mechanical resistance to axial load of the DLL was found to be comparable that of the TLL.

Level of Evidence Basic science study.

Keywords

biceps - tenodesis - suture anchor - interference screw


Publication History

Received: 28 December 2022

Accepted: 02 April 2024

Article published online:
25 September 2024

© 2024. Sociedad Chilena de Ortopedia y Traumatologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • Referencias

  • 1 Lansdown DA, Bernardoni ED, Verma NN. Surgical technique for arthroscopic onlay suprapectoral biceps tenodesis with an all-suture anchor. JSES Open Access 2018; 2 (01) 69-73
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Provencher MT, LeClere LE, Romeo AA. Subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 2008; 16 (03) 170-176
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Ahrens PM, Boileau P. The long head of biceps and associated tendinopathy. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007; 89 (08) 1001-1009
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Delle Rose G, Borroni M, Silvestro A. et al. The long head of biceps as a source of pain in active population: tenotomy or tenodesis? A comparison of 2 case series with isolated lesions. Musculoskelet Surg 2012; 96 (Suppl. 01) S47-S52
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Hsu AR, Ghodadra NS, Provencher MT, Lewis PB, Bach BR. Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: a review of clinical outcomes and biomechanical results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011; 20 (02) 326-332
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Slenker NR, Lawson K, Ciccotti MG, Dodson CC, Cohen SB. Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: clinical outcomes. Arthroscopy 2012; 28 (04) 576-582
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Shang X, Chen J, Chen S. A meta-analysis comparing tenotomy and tenodesis for treating rotator cuff tears combined with long head of the biceps tendon lesions. Nordez A, editor. PLoS One. 2017; Oct 9; 12 (10) e0185788
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Virk MS, Nicholson GP. Complications of Proximal Biceps Tenotomy and Tenodesis. Clin Sports Med 2016; 35 (01) 181-188
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Gurnani N, van Deurzen DFP, Janmaat VT, van den Bekerom MPJ. Tenotomy or tenodesis for pathology of the long head of the biceps brachii: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016; 24 (12) 3765-3771
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Papp DF, Skelley NW, Sutter EG. et al. Biomechanical evaluation of open suture anchor fixation versus interference screw for biceps tenodesis. Orthopedics 2011; 34 (07) e275-e278
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Park JS, Kim SH, Jung HJ, Lee YH, Oh JH. A Prospective Randomized Study Comparing the Interference Screw and Suture Anchor Techniques for Biceps Tenodesis. Am J Sports Med 2017; 45 (02) 440-448
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Patzer T, Rundic JM, Bobrowitsch E, Olender GD, Hurschler C, Schofer MD. Biomechanical comparison of arthroscopically performable techniques for suprapectoral biceps tenodesis. Arthroscopy 2011; 27 (08) 1036-1047
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Patzer T, Santo G, Olender GD, Wellmann M, Hurschler C, Schofer MD. Suprapectoral or subpectoral position for biceps tenodesis: biomechanical comparison of four different techniques in both positions. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2012; 21 (01) 116-125
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Tashjian RZ, Henninger HB. Biomechanical evaluation of subpectoral biceps tenodesis: dual suture anchor versus interference screw fixation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2013; 22 (10) 1408-1412
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Su WR, Budoff JE, Chiang CH, Lee CJ, Lin CL. Biomechanical study comparing biceps wedge tenodesis with other proximal long head of the biceps tenodesis techniques. Arthroscopy 2013; 29 (09) 1498-1505
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Gigi R, Dolkart O, Sharfman ZT. et al. Biomechanical evaluation of two arthroscopic techniques for biceps tenodesis: triple loop suture versus simple suture. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2017; 26 (01) 165-169
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Lafosse L, Van Raebroeckx A, Brzoska R. A new technique to improve tissue grip: “the lasso-loop stitch”. Arthroscopy 2006; 22 (11) 1246.e1-1246.e3
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Bois AJ, Roulet S, Le Dû C, Neyton L, Godenèche A. The “Double Lasso-Loop” Technique Used for Arthroscopic Proximal Biceps Tenodesis. Arthrosc Tech 2019; 8 (03) e291-e300
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Boileau P, Krishnan SG, Coste JS, Walch G. Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis: a new technique using bioabsorbable interference screw fixation. Arthroscopy 2002; 18 (09) 1002-1012
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Valenti P, Benedetto I, Maqdes A, Lima S, Moraiti C. “Relaxed” biceps proximal tenodesis: an arthroscopic technique with decreased residual tendon tension. Arthrosc Tech 2014; 3 (05) e639-e641
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Richards DP, Burkhart SS. A biomechanical analysis of two biceps tenodesis fixation techniques. Arthroscopy 2005; 21 (07) 861-866
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Ramos CH, Coelho JCU. Biomechanical evaluation of the long head of the biceps brachii tendon fixed by three techniques: a sheep model. Rev Bras Ortop 2016; 52 (01) 52-60
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Ozalay M, Akpinar S, Karaeminogullari O. et al. Mechanical strength of four different biceps tenodesis techniques. Arthroscopy 2005; 21 (08) 992-998
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Shi D, Wang D, Wang C, Liu A. A novel, inexpensive and easy to use tendon clamp for in vitro biomechanical testing. Med Eng Phys 2012; 34 (04) 516-520
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Golish SR, Caldwell III PE, Miller MD. et al. Interference screw versus suture anchor fixation for subpectoral tenodesis of the proximal biceps tendon: a cadaveric study. Arthroscopy 2008; 24 (10) 1103-1108
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Romeo AA, Mazzocca AD, Tauro JC. Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis. Arthroscopy 2004; 20 (02) 206-213
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar