| HOME | HELP | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
|
|
|||||||
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools. |
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
,,ll
From the San Francisco Orthopaedic Residency Program, San Francisco, California, St Mary’s Medical Center, San Francisco, California, VA Rehabilitation R&D Center, Palo Alto, California, and || St Francis Medical Technologies, Alameda, California
* Address correspondence to Cary S. Idler, MD, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, 450 Stanyan Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 (e-mail: c_idler{at}sbcglobal.net).
Background: A variety of techniques have been described for distal biceps tendon reattachment—bone tunnel with transosseous sutures, suture anchors, and interference screw techniques.
Hypothesis: There will be no significant difference between the mean failure strength, maximum strength, and stiffness of the intact specimen and repair techniques tested: bone tunnel with transosseous sutures and interference screw.
Study Design: Controlled laboratory study.
Methods: Nine matched pairs of fresh-frozen human cadaveric elbows were prepared. The intact tendon was pulled from the radial tuberosity; the right and left elbows were randomized to bone tunnels with transosseous sutures or interference screw repair techniques. The repaired specimens were pulled using the same regimen for the intact tendon. Failure strength, maximum strength, and stiffness were measured and compared.
Results: The mean failure strength, maximum strength, and stiffness of intact tendons were 204.3 ± 76.9 N, 221.7 ± 65.9 N, and 30.1 ± 12.4 N/mm, respectively; for the interference screw specimens, 178.0 ± 54.5 N, 192.1 ± 53.1 N, and 30.4 ± 9.5 N/mm, respectively; and for the bone tunnel specimens, 124.9 ± 22.8 N, 206.6 ± 49.8 N, and 15.9 ± 5.6 N/mm, respectively. There were no significant differences between measures in the intact and interference screw specimens. Mean failure strength and stiffness of the bone tunnel specimens were significantly lower than those of the intact and interference screw specimens; there was no significant difference between the maximum strengths of the treatments. Interference screw failure occurred abruptly with little plastic deformation in nearly all specimens with the tendon and screw pulling out as a unit, often involving fracture of the radial wall. Two of the bone tunnels failed at the bony bridge; the remainder lost bone-tendon contact as the distal tendon was shredded by the suture.
Conclusion: The results suggest interference screw fixation repair is nearly as strong and stiff as the intact tendon and stronger than the bone tunnel repair technique.
Clinical Relevance: The interference screw provides better stiffness and failure strength compared with the bone tunnel technique for distal biceps tendon repair. Given the superior mechanical properties, the interference screw technique is recommended as the treatment of choice for biceps tendon rupture repair.
Key Words: biceps tendon repair • bone tunnel • interference screw • biomechanics • failure strength • stiffness
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. King and M. Bollier Repair of Distal Biceps Tendon Ruptures Using the EndoButton J. Am. Acad. Ortho. Surg., August 1, 2008; 16(8): 490 - 494. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. R. Chavan, T. R. Duquin, and L. J. Bisson Repair of the Ruptured Distal Biceps Tendon: A Systematic Review Am. J. Sports Med., August 1, 2008; 36(8): 1618 - 1624. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Kettler, M. J. Tingart, J. Lunger, and V. Kuhn Reattachment of the distal tendon of biceps: FACTORS AFFECTING THE FAILURE STRENGTH OF THE REPAIR J Bone Joint Surg Br, January 1, 2008; 90-B(1): 103 - 106. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. J. Bisson, J. G. de Perio, A. E. Weber, M. T. Ehrensberger, and C. Buyea Is It Safe to Perform Aggressive Rehabilitation After Distal Biceps Tendon Repair Using the Modified 2-Incision Approach?: A Biomechanical Study Am. J. Sports Med., December 1, 2007; 35(12): 2045 - 2050. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Kettler, J. Lunger, V. Kuhn, W. Mutschler, and M. J. Tingart Failure Strengths in Distal Biceps Tendon Repair Am. J. Sports Med., September 1, 2007; 35(9): 1544 - 1548. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. Treme, J. A. Hart, and M. D. Miller What's New in Sports Medicine J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., March 1, 2007; 89(3): 686 - 696. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
