The double-lasso loop technique of Biceps tenodesis has lower displacement after cyclic loading, compared to interference screw fixation: Biomechanical analysis in an ovine model.

IF 1.5 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS Shoulder and Elbow Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2022-04-27 DOI:10.1177/17585732221095766
Bryon Jx Teo, Andy Yew, Marcus Wei Ping Tan, Siaw Meng Chou, Denny Tjiauw Tjoen Lie
{"title":"The double-lasso loop technique of Biceps tenodesis has lower displacement after cyclic loading, compared to interference screw fixation: Biomechanical analysis in an ovine model.","authors":"Bryon Jx Teo, Andy Yew, Marcus Wei Ping Tan, Siaw Meng Chou, Denny Tjiauw Tjoen Lie","doi":"10.1177/17585732221095766","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Biceps tenodesis is an effective treatment for symptomatic long head of biceps tendon pathology. Recently the arthroscopic \"double lasso-loop\" suture anchor (DLSA) technique was described, advantaged by reduced cost, complexity, and operative time. We aimed to compare the in vitro strength of DLSA with conventional interference screws (IS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A biomechanical analysis was conducted on 14 sheep shoulders (8 DLSA, 6 IS), consisting of a 500-cycle cyclic loading experiment of 5-70 N and ultimate failure load (UFL) test where each specimen was pulled until failure. Displacement (mm) was recorded every 100 cycles, while stiffness and UFL were observed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Cyclic displacement was significantly lower with DLSA at 100 cycles, but not above. During the UFL test, IS was stiffer (27.68 ± 6.56 N/mm versus 14.10 ± 5.80 N/mm, <i>p</i> = .005) and had higher UFL (453.67 ± 148.55 N versus 234.22 ± 44.57 N, <i>p</i> = .001) than DLSA. All DLSA failures occurred with suture/anchor pull-out, while all IS constructs failed at the muscle/tendon.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Comparison of the novel DLSA technique with a traditional IS method found lower initial displacement. While our IS constructs could withstand higher UFL, peak load characteristics of DLSA were similar to previous ovine studies. Hence, the DLSA technique is a viable alternative to IS for biceps tenodesis with its purported non-biomechanical advantages.</p>","PeriodicalId":36705,"journal":{"name":"Shoulder and Elbow","volume":"15 6","pages":"602-609"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10656979/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Shoulder and Elbow","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17585732221095766","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/4/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Biceps tenodesis is an effective treatment for symptomatic long head of biceps tendon pathology. Recently the arthroscopic "double lasso-loop" suture anchor (DLSA) technique was described, advantaged by reduced cost, complexity, and operative time. We aimed to compare the in vitro strength of DLSA with conventional interference screws (IS).

Methods: A biomechanical analysis was conducted on 14 sheep shoulders (8 DLSA, 6 IS), consisting of a 500-cycle cyclic loading experiment of 5-70 N and ultimate failure load (UFL) test where each specimen was pulled until failure. Displacement (mm) was recorded every 100 cycles, while stiffness and UFL were observed.

Results: Cyclic displacement was significantly lower with DLSA at 100 cycles, but not above. During the UFL test, IS was stiffer (27.68 ± 6.56 N/mm versus 14.10 ± 5.80 N/mm, p = .005) and had higher UFL (453.67 ± 148.55 N versus 234.22 ± 44.57 N, p = .001) than DLSA. All DLSA failures occurred with suture/anchor pull-out, while all IS constructs failed at the muscle/tendon.

Discussion: Comparison of the novel DLSA technique with a traditional IS method found lower initial displacement. While our IS constructs could withstand higher UFL, peak load characteristics of DLSA were similar to previous ovine studies. Hence, the DLSA technique is a viable alternative to IS for biceps tenodesis with its purported non-biomechanical advantages.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
与干涉螺钉固定相比,二头肌肌腱固定双套索袢技术在循环加载后具有更低的位移:羊模型的生物力学分析。
背景:二头肌肌腱固定术是治疗症状性二头肌肌腱长头病变的有效方法。最近,关节镜下的“双套索-环”缝合锚钉(DLSA)技术被描述,其优点是成本低、复杂性低、手术时间短。我们的目的是比较DLSA与常规干涉螺钉(IS)的体外强度。方法:对14只羊肩(8只DLSA, 6只IS)进行生物力学分析,包括500次5-70 N的循环加载实验和极限破坏载荷(UFL)试验,每个标本都被拉至破坏。每100次循环记录位移(mm),同时观察刚度和UFL。结果:DLSA在100次循环时显著降低循环位移,但不高于100次。在UFL测试中,IS比DLSA更僵硬(27.68±6.56 N/mm比14.10±5.80 N/mm, p = 0.005), UFL(453.67±148.55 N比234.22±44.57 N, p = 0.001)。所有的DLSA失效都发生在缝线/锚钉拔出时,而所有的IS构建都在肌肉/肌腱处失效。讨论:将新型DLSA技术与传统IS方法进行比较,发现初始位移更小。虽然我们的IS结构可以承受更高的UFL,但DLSA的峰值负荷特征与之前的绵羊研究相似。因此,DLSA技术具有非生物力学的优势,是二头肌肌腱固定术的可行替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Shoulder and Elbow
Shoulder and Elbow Medicine-Rehabilitation
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
91
期刊最新文献
Epidemiology of acromioclavicular joint separations presenting to emergency departments in the United States between 2004 and 2023. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with bioinductive patch achieves equivalent patient-reported outcomes and retear rate at 1 year. Patterns of management for post-traumatic elbow stiffness: A comparative study of open and arthroscopic approaches. Stress shielding influences shoulder function after reverse shoulder arthroplasty using a short stem at minimum 2 years follow-up and can be predicted using a preoperative planning software: A retrospective cohort study. Response to the Letter-to-the-Editor by Dr H Duansuperwong and Prof. V Wiwanitkit.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1