Biomechanical study comparing biceps wedge tenodesis with other proximal long head of the biceps tenodesis techniques.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this biomechanical study was to compare the ultimate failure strength, stiffness, cyclic displacement, and failure displacement of 5 different proximal biceps tenodesis fixation techniques, specifically comparing wedge tenodesis with the other 4 techniques.

METHODS

Forty cadaveric shoulders underwent 1 of 5 long head of the biceps tenodesis techniques and were cyclically tested to failure by use of tensile forces applied parallel to the longitudinal axis of the humerus. A preload at 5 N was applied for 2 minutes, followed by cyclical loading for 500 cycles from 5 to 70 N at 1 Hz and a pull-to-failure test at 1 mm/s. The techniques studied were wedge tenodesis, suture anchor fixation, suprapectoral interference screw fixation, T-wedge tenodesis, and the percutaneous intra-articular transtendon (PITT) technique. Cyclic displacement, failure displacement, and stiffness were calculated.

RESULTS

The wedge tenodesis technique had an ultimate failure load similar to interference screw fixation and a greater ultimate failure load and stiffness than the suture anchor, PITT, and T-wedge techniques (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

In this biomechanical study, wedge tenodesis was found to have an ultimate failure load similar to interference screw fixation and a greater ultimate failure load and stiffness than the suture anchor, PITT, and T-wedge techniques.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

On biomechanical testing, wedge tenodesis compares favorably with other techniques and may be a useful clinical option for proximal biceps tenodesis.