Implant-Free Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Is Biomechanically at Higher Risk of Spiral Fracture of the Humerus Compared With Implant-Free Suprapectoral Biceps Tenodesis

Arthroscopic Inlay Biceps Tenodesis Using a Tendon-Docking Anchor

Pathology of the long head of the biceps tendon can be treated surgically with a multitude of tenodesis techniques; however, there is a lack of consensus on which technique provides the most optimal outcomes. Commonly used methods include inlay tenodesis with a bone tunnel and interference screw construct and onlay tenodesis with anchors or unicortical buttons. Although current methods typically provide satisfactory outcomes, many surgeons believe complications and failure rates remain suboptimal across techniques. In this article, we present an arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis technique using an anchor device that was developed to address the shortcomings of current techniques, optimize outcomes, and minimize risk.

Biomechanical comparisons of all--suture suspensory button vs. interference screw for inlay subpectoral bicep tenodesis

BACKGROUND

All-suture buttons (ASBs) and interference screw (IS) are commonly utilized in the inlay subpectoral biceps tendon tenodesis. However, the biomechanical characteristics of these two methods have not been compared directly. The aim of present study was to compare the biomechanical properties of ASB vs. IS for inlay subpectoral biceps tendon tenodesis in a human cadaveric model.

METHODS

Sixteen fresh-frozen human cadaveric shoulders were randomly divided into two experimental inlay biceps tenodesis groups: ASB or IS. After tenodesis, every specimen was preloaded at 5 N for 2 minutes, followed with a cyclic loading test from 5 to 70 N for 500 load cycles. Then the load-to-failure test was performed. Afterward, the humerus was placed in a cylinder tube and secured with anchoring cement. Lastly, a two-point bending test was performed to determine the strength of the humerus. Destructive axial force was applied, and the failure strength and displacement were recorded.

RESULTS

No difference in stiffness was observed between the two groups (ASB = 27.4 ± 3.5 N/mm vs. IS = 29.7 ± 3.0 N/mm; P = .270). Cyclic displacement was significantly greater in the ASB group (6.8 ± 2.6 mm) than the IS group (3.8 ± 1.1 mm; P = .021). In terms of failure load, there were no statistical differences among the two groups (P = .234). The ASB group was able to withstand significantly greater displacement (11.9 ± 1.6 mm) before failure than the IS group (7.8 ± 1.5 mm; P = .001). During the humeral bending test, the ASB group exhibited significantly greater maximal load (2354.8 ± 285.1 N vs. 2086.4 ± 296.1 N; P = .046) and larger displacement (17.8 ± 2.8 mm vs. 14.1 ± 2.8 mm; P = .027) before fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

In inlay subpectoral bicep tenodesis, ASB fixation appears to offer comparable stiffness and failure load to that of IS fixation. Additionally, the ASB group exhibited greater resistance to load and displacement before humeral fracture. However, the ASB group did demonstrate increased cyclic displacement compared to IS group.

The rate and reporting of fracture after biceps tenodesis: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this systematic review was to (1) define the cumulative humerus fracture rate after BT and (2) compare how often fracture rate was reported compared to other complications.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using the PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

39 studies reported complications and 30 reported no complications. Of the 39 studies that reported complications, 5 studies reported fracture after BT (n = 669, cumulative incidence of 0.53%). The overall non-fracture complication rate was 12.9%.

DISCUSSION

Due to the relatively high incidence of fracture, surgeons should ensure that this complication is disclosed to patients undergoing BT.