Biomechanical characterization of unicortical button fixation: a novel technique for proximal subpectoral biceps tenodesis

Comparison of clinical outcomes and return to sport between unicortical versus bicortical button fixation techniques for subpectoral biceps tenodesis

PURPOSE

There is limited clinical outcome data comparing fixation methods for tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT), particularly button fixation. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, and return to sport (RTS) between patients undergoing LHBT with bicortical versus unicortical button technique. The authors hypothesized these fixation methods would be similar for all outcomes.

METHODS

Patients who underwent LHBT using unicortical or bicortical button fixation with minimum 2-year follow-up were identified. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) questionnaire and visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score. A sports activity survey was collected to assess baseline sport participation and ability to return to pre-injury activities. Continuous variables were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney-U test. Categorical variables were analyzed using Chi-squared tests. Multivariable logistic and linear regression were performed to determine predictors of RTS and time to RTS.

RESULTS

Sixty-four subjects (19 unicortical and 45 bicortical button fixation) were included (average follow-up 3.5 (range: 2.0-7.8) years). There were no significant differences found between button groups for VAS pain score (1.5 vs. 1.2; p = 0.876), VAS pain during sport score (1.6 vs. 1.1, p = 0.398), and ASES score (66 vs. 71; p = 0.294). There were no significant differences in rate of RTS (75.0 vs. 77.4%; p = 0.885) or average time to return to sport (11.7 ± 7.3 vs. 7.0 ± 4.0 months; p = 0.081) between groups.

CONCLUSION

There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes, pain, or return to sport between patients who underwent LHBT with unicortical or bicortical button fixation.

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.

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.

Early Versus Delayed Active Range of Motion After Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis

Background

Little is known regarding the effect of early active elbow range of motion (ROM) protocols on failure rates and outcomes after open subpectoral biceps tenodesis.

Hypothesis

We hypothesized that patients managed using an early active ROM protocol after open subpectoral biceps tenodesis would demonstrate similar failure rates and functional outcomes compared to patients managed using a traditional delayed active ROM protocol.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

We evaluated 63 patients who underwent open subpectoral biceps tenodesis with unicortical suture button fixation. Based on surgeon preference, 22 patients were managed using an early active motion protocol consisting of no restrictions on elbow flexion or forearm supination, while 41 patients were managed using a delayed motion protocol postoperatively. Primary outcome measures included failure of biceps tenodesis and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) scores. Secondary outcomes included shoulder and elbow ROM at 6 months postoperatively.

Results

The mean follow-up for the 63 patients was 24.2 months postoperatively. One patient (2.4%) in the delayed active motion cohort and no patients in the early active motion cohort experienced failure. Final outcome scores as well as 6-month shoulder and elbow ROM indicated excellent functional outcomes, with no significant difference between motion cohorts. The median postoperative ASES scores were 97.99 in the early active motion cohort (mean ± standard deviation [SD], 95.49 ± 7.68) and 95.42 in the delayed motion cohort (mean ± SD, 90.93 ± 16.08), while median postoperative SANE scores were 96 in the early motion cohort (mean ± SD, 94.23 ± 6.68) and 95 in the delayed motion cohort (mean ± SD, 88.39 ± 17.98). Subgroup analysis demonstrated no significant difference in outcome scores based on the performance of concomitant rotator cuff repair or hand dominance.

Conclusion

Early active ROM after open subpectoral biceps tenodesis with unicortical suture button fixation resulted in low failure rates and excellent clinical outcomes, comparable to the results of patients managed using delayed active ROM protocols. This suggests that patients undergoing open subpectoral biceps tenodesis may be managed using either early or delayed active motion protocols without compromising functional outcome.

Arthroscopic Biceps to Subscapularis Tenodesis: A Surgical Technique

A wide variety of techniques are available for tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon, and current literature does not favor any one in particular. We present a simple method for arthroscopic soft tissue biceps tenodesis that uses the subscapularis tendon as the anchor. This 5-step technique is time-efficient, technically simple, cost effective, and does not require powered instruments or specialized implants.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Biceps Tenodesis Fixation Strengths: Fixation Type and Location Are Biomechanically Equivalent

PURPOSE

The purpose of this meta-analysis and systematic review was to critically evaluate the biomechanical outcomes of different fixation constructs for a variety of biceps tenodesis techniques in cadaveric models based on both type of fixation and location.

METHODS

A PROSPERO-registered systematic review (CCRD42018109243) of the current literature was conducted with the terms "long head of biceps" AND "tenodesis" AND "biomechanics" and numerous variations thereof in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases, yielding 1,460 abstracts. After screening by eligibility criteria, 18 full-text articles were included. The individual biomechanical factors evaluated included ultimate load to failure (in newtons), stiffness (in newtons per millimeter), and cyclic displacement (in millimeters). After reviewing the included literature, we performed a quality analysis of the studies (Quality Appraisal for Cadaveric Studies scale score) and a meta-analysis comparing raw mean differences in data between the suprapectoral and subpectoral fixation location groups, as well as between the fixation construct groups.

RESULTS

Among the 18 included studies, 347 cadaveric specimens were evaluated for ultimate load to failure, stiffness, and cyclic displacement when comparing both location (suprapectoral vs subpectoral) and tenodesis fixation type (interference screw vs cortical button, suture anchor, or all-soft-tissue techniques). Interference screw fixation showed significantly greater mean stiffness by 8.0 N/mm (P = .013) compared with the other grouped techniques but did not show significant differences when evaluated for ultimate load to failure and cyclic displacement (P = .28 and P = .18, respectively). Additionally, no difference in construct strength was seen when comparing the fixation strength of suprapectoral versus subpectoral techniques for stiffness, ultimate load to failure, and cyclic loading (P = .47, P = .053, and P = .13, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, no significant biomechanical differences were found when the results were stratified by specific surgical technique (interference screw vs other tenodesis techniques) and location (suprapectoral vs subpectoral biceps tenodesis).

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

As a result of this study, when biomechanically evaluating specific tenodesis constructs, the individual clinician has the liberty of choosing the fixation technique based on his or her preference and knowledge of shortcomings of each type of fixation construct.

Clinical Outcomes of an All-Arthroscopic Biceps Tenodesis Using the Anterolateral Anchor During Concomitant Double-Row Rotator Cuff Repair

Background:

Pathology of the long head of the biceps tendon frequently occurs concomitantly with rotator cuff tears, necessitating a surgical treatment, often in the form of a tenodesis procedure. Many techniques for a tenodesis exist; however, they often require additional implants or a separate incision.

Purpose:

To report an average of 2-year outcomes of an all-arthroscopic biceps tenodesis employing the stay sutures from the anterolateral anchor during concomitant double-row rotator cuff repair (RCR).

Study Design:

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed for all patients who underwent an all-arthroscopic biceps tenodesis during concomitant double-row RCR by the senior author between January 2014 and May 2018. Patients were included if they underwent this procedure and had baseline preoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with a minimum of 1 year of postoperative PROs for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain score. Additionally, patient data, surgical history, postoperative complications, and satisfaction were reported.

Results:

Fifteen patients were eligible for the study. There were 12 (80%) men and 3 (20%) women with a mean age of 50.0 years (range, 35-64 years). The mean follow-up time was 25.2 months (range, 13-63 months). Six of 15 (40%) patients also had an arthroscopic subscapularis repair performed. ASES shoulder scores improved from 37.1 preoperatively to 94.1 postoperatively (P < .001), and VAS scores improved from 6.4 preoperatively to 0.5 postoperatively (P < .001). One patient who underwent concomitant subscapularis repair reported continued anterior groove pain. No patients experienced biceps cramping, developed a deformity, or required a repeat operation at the final follow-up. Overall, 93.3% of the patients reported being highly satisfied with their surgery.

Conclusion:

This study presents the clinical results of an all-arthroscopic technique for concomitant double-row RCR and biceps tenodesis, which resulted in high rates of patient satisfaction and significant improvement in reported shoulder outcome and pain scores. Additionally, this technique offers the potential benefits of avoiding a secondary incision, which may decrease surgical morbidity while also decreasing cost by eliminating the need for an extra, tenodesis-specific implant.

Arthroscopic Biceps Tenodesis Outcomes: A Comparison of Inlay and Onlay Techniques

BACKGROUND

Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis (ABT) high in the groove can be achieved using an inlay or an onlay technique. However, there is little information comparing outcomes between the 2.

PURPOSE

To compare postoperative healing and functional outcomes of ABT high in the groove performed using either an onlay or an inlay technique.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed on patients undergoing ABT at the articular margin (high in the groove) at a single center over a 2-year period. An inlay technique using an interference screw was performed during the first year, followed by an onlay technique using a knotless suture anchor during the second. Tendon healing, elbow flexion strength, functional outcome, and complications were evaluated at a postoperative minimum of 1 year.

RESULTS

A total of 37 patients with inlay and 53 with onlay ABTs were available for follow-up. There was no difference in range of motion, functional outcome scores, or elbow flexion strength between the groups. A postoperative popeye deformity was noted in 27% of patients in the inlay group as compared with 9.4% of the onlay group (P = .028). Four patients (10.8%) in the inlay group required revision surgery (2 of which were biceps tenodesis related) as compared with 0% in the onlay group (P = .015).

CONCLUSION

An onlay technique using a knotless suture anchor for ABT at the top of the articular margin is an acceptable alternative to an inlay technique using an interference screw. The onlay technique was associated with lower rates of postoperative popeye deformity and revision surgery as compared with the inlay technique.

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.

Biomechanical Evaluation of Humerus Fracture After Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis With Interference Screw Versus Unicortical Button

PURPOSE

To compare the torsional failure strength of the humerus after subpectoral biceps tenodesis with an interference screw versus a unicortical button in a human cadaveric model.

METHODS

Thirteen matched pairs of fresh-frozen human cadaveric upper extremities were randomized to receive either 2.6 × 12 mm unicortical button or 6.25-mm interference screw subpectoral biceps tenodesis. After the procedure, the humeri were loaded into a materials testing machine. The humeri were loaded in external rotation with respect to the elbow at 1.0°/s until failure. Rotation angle to failure, failure torque, energy absorbed, and stiffness were compared by paired t-tests with alpha set at 0.05.

RESULTS

Humeri that were fixed with unicortical buttons showed statistically significant higher rotation to failure (26.87 ± 5.83 vs 19.04 ± 3.86°, P < .001), failure torque (54.11 ± 22.01 vs 44.95 ± 17.47 Nm, P < .001), and energy absorbed (883.93 ± 582.28 vs 451.40 ± 216.19 Nm-Deg, P = .002) than humeri fixed with interference screws.

CONCLUSIONS

In a cadaveric biomechanical model, at time 0, the use of a 2.7 × 12-mm unicortical button fixation in biceps tenodesis resulted in higher loads required to fracture the humerus when compared with a 6.25-mm interference screw fixation in a torsion model.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study demonstrates a significant biomechanical difference with regards to fracture of the humerus, between 2 commonly used fixations methods and implant sizes, interference screw, and unicortical button. The results of this study can aid surgeons in implant selection as well as help to improve patient education prior to surgery.

Are Implant Choice and Surgical Approach Associated With Biceps Tenodesis Construct Strength? A Systematic Review and Meta-regression

BACKGROUND

Despite the increasing use of biceps tenodesis, there is a lack of consensus regarding optimal implant choice (suture anchor vs interference screw) and implant placement (suprapectoral vs subpectoral).

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The purpose was to determine the associations of procedural parameters with the biomechanical performance of biceps tenodesis constructs. The authors hypothesized that ultimate failure load (UFL) would not differ between sub- and suprapectoral repairs or between interference screw and suture anchor constructs and that the number of implants and number of sutures would be positively associated with construct strength.

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

METHODS

The authors conducted a systematic literature search for studies that measured the biomechanical performance of biceps tenodesis repairs in human cadaveric specimens. Two independent reviewers extracted data from studies that met the inclusion criteria. Meta-regression was then performed on the pooled data set. Outcome variables were UFL and mode of failure. Procedural parameters (fixation type, fixation site, implant diameter, and numbers of implants and sutures used) were included as covariates. Twenty-five biomechanical studies, representing 494 cadaveric specimens, met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The use of interference screws (vs suture anchors) was associated with a mean 86 N-greater UFL (95% CI, 34-138 N; P = .002). Each additional suture used to attach the tendon to the implant was associated with a mean 53 N-greater UFL (95% CI, 24-81 N; P = .001). Multivariate analysis found no significant association between fixation site and UFL. Finally, the use of suture anchors and fewer number of sutures were both independently associated with lower odds of native tissue failure as opposed to implant pullout.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that fixation with interference screws, rather than suture anchors, and the use of more sutures are associated with greater biceps tenodesis strength, as well as higher odds of native tissue failure versus implant pullout. Although constructs with suture anchors show inferior UFL compared with those with interference screws, incorporation of additional sutures may increase the strength of suture anchor constructs. Supra- and subpectoral repairs provide equivalent biomechanical strength when controlling for potential confounders.

Rupture of the long head of the biceps brachii tendon near the musculotendinous junction in a young patient: A case report

We report an unusual case of the long head of the biceps brachii tendon rupture near the musculotendinous junction in a young patient. The injury occurred in a young athlete during sports competition. The clinical presentation, surgical treatment, and technique with tenodesis using a unicortical button of the ruptured tendon were presented. The post-surgical recovery was uneventful, and the patient returned to sports in 6 mo. The treatment approach and surgical technique of the long head of biceps brachii rupture was reviewed and discussed. In conclusion, surgical treatment of the long head of the biceps brachii tendon rupture with unicortical button tenodesis resulted in a favorable outcome in a young athlete.

Double on-lay fixation using all suture-type anchor for subpectoral biceps tenodesis has favorable functional outcomes and leads to less cosmetic deformities than single on-lay fixation

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between single on-lay and double on-lay subpectoral biceps tenodesis (SPBT) using all-suture type anchor in patients with concomitant long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) lesions and rotator cuff tears.

METHODS

The study included 130 patients who underwent SPBT using all-suture type anchor and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Single and double anchor on-lay fixations were performed in 69 patients (group A) and 61 patients (group B), respectively. In 16 patients of group A and 36 patients of group B, a metallic wire was embedded at tenodesis site and difference of wire location pre-and postoperatively was measured using simple radiography.

RESULTS

In both groups, the mean visual analogue scale (VAS) score during motion, the mean UCLA and constant scores significantly improved at the last follow-up (all p < 0.001). These scores were not significantly different between two groups. However, postoperatively, a significant difference was observed in the incidence of cosmetic deformity between two groups (p = 0.019). The cosmetic deformity was noted in 9 (13.0%) patients (Popeye deformity 7.2% and biceps softening 5.8%) in group A and 1 (1.6%) patient (Popeye deformity) in group B. In the subgroup analysis on biceps migration after the surgery, the mean migration distance of metal wire was 2.5 ± 3.0 mm in group A and 1.9 ± 2.6 mm in group B (n.s.). No patient had migration of > 10 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

SPBT using all-suture type anchor was a favorable treatment option for lesions of the LHBT with rotator cuff tear. The clinical relevance of this study is the finding that double on-lay fixation with all-suture type anchor would result less cosmetic deformity than the single on-lay fixation for those who need subpectoral biceps tenodesis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

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.

Immediate physical therapy without postoperative restrictions following open subpectoral biceps tenodesis: low failure rates and improved outcomes at a minimum 2-year follow-up

HYPOTHESIS

We aimed to determine patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing open subpectoral biceps tenodesis with a dual-fixation construct who had no postoperative range-of-motion or weight-bearing restrictions. Our hypothesis was that patients without postoperative restrictions would have low failure rates with improved patient-reported outcomes. We further hypothesized that this technique would allow an earlier return to activity and similar functional outcomes when compared with those reported in the literature.

METHODS

In this institutional review board-approved retrospective outcome study, we evaluated 105 patients who underwent primary open subpectoral biceps tenodesis with a bicortical suture button and interference screw construct without postoperative restrictions. The primary outcome measure was failure of the biceps tenodesis. Postoperative outcome scores included the Short Form 12 (SF-12) Physical Component Score; SF-12 Mental Component Score; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons total score and subscales; and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score.

RESULTS

A total of 98 patients (85%) were available for final follow-up at an average of 3.5 years. There were 2 failures (2.2%), at 5 weeks and 9 weeks postoperatively. Four patients underwent additional surgery unrelated to the previous tenodesis procedure. Final outcome scores indicated high levels of function, including the SF-12 Physical Component Score (mean, 51.5; SD, 7.8), SF-12 Mental Component Score (mean, 54.7; SD, 6.7), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons total score (mean, 89.4; SD, 14.2), and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score (mean, 11.3; SD, 13.4).

CONCLUSION

Open subpectoral biceps tenodesis using a dual-fixation construct with no postoperative motion restrictions resulted in excellent outcomes with a low incidence of failure.

A cadaveric assessment of the risk of nerve injury during open subpectoral biceps tenodesis using a bicortical guidewire

PURPOSE

To evaluate the risk of neurological injury from the placement of a bicortical guidewire during subpectoral biceps tenodesis.

METHODS

Ten forequarter cadaver specimens were evaluated. A bicortical guidewire was placed, and measurements to important local neurological structures were made with digital calipers at open dissection.

RESULTS

The mean (range, SD) distances from the guidewire to the respective nerves was as follows: axillary nerve posteriorly, 15.7 mm (10-22 mm, 3.4); axillary nerve laterally, 18.7 mm (12-27 mm, 4.3); radial nerve posteriorly, 26.2 mm (16-35 mm, 7.0); radial nerve medially, 25 mm (16-33 mm, 4.4); and musculocutaneous nerve, 20.1 mm (12-26 mm, 5.2).

CONCLUSIONS

There has been some disagreement in the literature regarding the proximity of a bicortical guidewire to the axillary nerve posteriorly. The results of this study concur with reports from several other authors and demonstrate that this nerve is at risk of iatrogenic injury when using this technique. The clinical relevance of this work is to allow surgeons to better understand the proximity of the nerve to a bicortical guidewire and to highlight that this risk is avoided with a unicortical technique.

Low incidence of failure after proximal biceps tenodesis with unicortical suture button

PURPOSE

Recent interest in suture button fixation has developed with regard to proximal biceps tenodesis fixation. Biomechanical studies have demonstrated viability of a unicortical suture button technique in vitro. Despite this, no clinical data has been reported to validate the biomechanical data. The purpose of this study is to report on complication and failure rates in the early postoperative period after bicep tenodesis with a unicortical suture button.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of all biceps tenodesis performed at our institution over a 36-month period using a unicortical suture button for fixation. All included patients had a minimum 12 weeks follow up. Failures were defined as complete loss of fixation, change in biceps contour during the early postoperative period, acute pain at the tenodesis site, or acute loss of supination strength.

RESULTS

145 of 166 biceps tenodesis procedures performed by the 4 surgeons at our institution met inclusion criteria. 80.1% of the patients were active duty military at the time of surgery. The average age was 38.2 years. There were 7 total complications (4.8%), including one failure (0.7%) requiring revision.

CONCLUSION

Failure and complication rates in the early postoperative period using a unicortical suture button for biceps tenodesis fixation are consistent with other reported techniques. This study adds clinical data to the existing biomechanical reports that this technique is strong enough to provide stable fixation of the biceps tendon to allow healing of the tendon to the humerus.

Suprapectoral biceps tenodesis using a suture plate: clinical results after 2 years

PURPOSE

Several techniques for performing a tenodesis of the long head of biceps (LHB) are described. Only few outcome studies are published. This note describes a unicortical fixation via a suture plate-comparable to a distal biceps refixation-performed arthroscopically or mini-open via standard suprapectoral approach. The aim of this study is to show the clinical outcome after 6, 12, and 24 months.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A consecutive series of 50 (35 male, 15 female) patients at the mean age of 49 years (range 23-75) who underwent tenodesis of the LHB were followed for 2 years. All patients were operated by a single surgeon (CS). The clinical evaluation included Constant score, Scheibel LHB score and VAS. Structural integrity of the tenodesis was checked by ultrasound control. Integrity of the tenodesis was evaluated indirectly by detecting the LHB-tendon up to the ultrasound-reflex of the button. No tendon at the button-reflex was considered as failure of the tenodesis. An independent examiner who was not the operating surgeon performed all evaluations. (MG evaluated the patients operated by CS).

RESULTS

Mean follow-up was 29.5 (range 22-32) months. The mean pre-operative Constant Murley score (CMS) was 67.4 points (range 45-78) and increased to 84.7 points (range 51-99) after 2 years. LHB Score was 90.8 after 24 months. We identified 2 failed biceps fixations (4%). Pain relief was achieved in most patients within the first 12 weeks. After 2 years, the mean biceps flexion strength averaged 84% of the healthy arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Tenodesis of the LHB with a unicortical suture plate is a safe fixation technique with good-to-excellent clinical results after a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Long-term follow-up is needed.

Biomechanical Comparison of All-Suture Anchor Fixation and Interference Screw Technique for Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis

PURPOSE

To compare the biomechanical characteristics of the subpectoral Y-knot all-suture anchor fixation with those of the interference screw technique.

METHODS

Sixteen fresh-frozen human cadaveric shoulders with a mean age of 67.6 ± 5.8 years (range, 52 to 74 years) were studied. The specimens were randomly grouped into 2 experimental biceps tenodesis groups (n = 8): Y-knot all-suture anchor or interference screw. The specimens were cyclically tested to failure by applying tensile forces parallel to the longitudinal axis of the humerus. A preload of 5 N was applied for 2 minutes prior to cyclic loading for 500 cycles from 5 to 70 N at 1 Hz; subsequently, a load-to-failure test at 1 mm/s was performed. The ultimate failure load, stiffness, displacement at cyclic and failure loading, and mode of failure were recorded.

RESULTS

The all-suture anchor technique displayed values of ultimate failure load and stiffness comparable to that of the interference screw technique. The displacement at cyclic and failure loading of the all-suture anchor trials were significantly greater than the interference screw (P = .0002). The all-suture anchor specimens experienced anchor pullout and tendon tear equally during the trials, whereas the interference screw group experienced tendon tear in most of the cases and screw pullout in 2 trials.

CONCLUSIONS

The Y-knot all-suture anchor fixation provides equivalent ultimate failure load and stiffness when compared with the interference screw technique in tenodesis of the proximal biceps tendon from a subpectoral approach. However, the interference screw technique demonstrates significantly less displacement in response to cyclic and failure loading.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The all-suture anchor fixation is an alternative technique for subpectoral biceps tenodesis even at greater displacement when compared with the interference screw fixation during cyclic and failure loading.