肱二头肌远端肌腱修复:完整肌腱与两种修复技术的生物力学比较

Distal biceps tendon repair: a biomechanical comparison of intact tendon and 2 repair techniques.

作者信息

Idler Cary S, Montgomery William H, Lindsey Derek P, Badua Peter A, Wynne Garnet F, Yerby Scott A

机构信息

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, 450 Stanyan Street, San Francisco, CA 94117, USA.

出版信息

Am J Sports Med. 2006 Jun;34(6):968-74. doi: 10.1177/0363546505284185. Epub 2006 Feb 13.

Abstract

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.

摘要

背景

已描述了多种用于肱二头肌远端肌腱重新附着的技术——带骨隧道的经骨缝线技术、缝线锚钉技术和干涉螺钉技术。

假设

完整标本与所测试的修复技术(带经骨缝线的骨隧道技术和干涉螺钉技术)在平均破坏强度、最大强度和刚度方面无显著差异。

研究设计

对照实验室研究。

方法

制备9对匹配的新鲜冷冻人体尸体肘部标本。将完整肌腱从桡骨粗隆处取出;左右肘部随机采用带经骨缝线的骨隧道技术或干涉螺钉修复技术。对修复后的标本采用与完整肌腱相同的方案进行拉伸。测量并比较破坏强度、最大强度和刚度。

结果

完整肌腱的平均破坏强度、最大强度和刚度分别为204.3±76.9N、221.7±65.9N和30.1±12.4N/mm;干涉螺钉标本分别为178.0±54.5N、192.1±53.1N和30.4±9.5N/mm;骨隧道标本分别为124.9±22.8N、206.6±49.8N和15.9±5.6N/mm。完整标本和干涉螺钉标本的各项测量指标之间无显著差异。骨隧道标本的平均破坏强度和刚度显著低于完整标本和干涉螺钉标本;各治疗组的最大强度之间无显著差异。几乎所有标本中,干涉螺钉失效均突然发生,几乎没有塑性变形,肌腱和螺钉作为一个整体拔出,常伴有桡骨壁骨折。2个骨隧道在骨桥处失效;其余的在远端肌腱被缝线撕裂时失去了骨与肌腱的接触。

结论

结果表明,干涉螺钉固定修复的强度和刚度几乎与完整肌腱相同,且比骨隧道修复技术更强。

临床意义

与骨隧道技术相比,干涉螺钉用于肱二头肌远端肌腱修复时具有更好的刚度和破坏强度。鉴于其优越的力学性能,建议将干涉螺钉技术作为肱二头肌肌腱断裂修复的首选治疗方法。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索