Werner Brian C, Lyons Matthew L, Evans Cody L, Griffin Justin W, Hart Joseph M, Miller Mark D, Brockmeier Stephen F
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia, U.S.A.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia, U.S.A..
Arthroscopy. 2015 Apr;31(4):620-7. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2014.10.012. Epub 2014 Dec 10.
This study aimed to (1) evaluate the ex vivo restoration of the long head biceps length-tension for both arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (ASPBT) and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis (OSPBT) techniques and (2) assess how location in the proximal humerus affects pullout strength for tenodesis using an interference screw implant.
Eighteen matched cadaveric shoulders were randomized to OSPBT or ASPBT groups (9 each). Tenodesis was performed using clinical techniques. Preoperatively, a metallic bead was placed in the biceps tendon and a fluoroscopic image was obtained. Postoperatively, an image was obtained to evaluate the location of the tenodesis and the metallic bead and determine tensioning. Biomechanical load-to-failure testing was then performed.
The ASPBT technique resulted in an average of 2.15 ± 0.62 cm of biceps overtensioning compared with 0.78 ± 0.35 cm (P < .001) in the OSPBT group. The average load to failure in the ASPBT group was 138.8 ± 29.1 N compared with 197 ± 38.6 N (P = .002) in the OSPBT group. Failure caused by implant pullout was significantly more frequent in the ASPBT group (7 of 9) than in the OSPBT group (1 of 9).
The described ASPBT technique using an interference screw implant has the tendency to overtension the biceps and has a significantly decreased ultimate load to failure compared with an open subpectoral technique in matched cadaveric specimens.
This study shows differences in the biomechanical properties of OSPBT and ASPBT. Modification of currently published ASPBT techniques may be necessary to improve restoration of the physiological length-tension relationship of the biceps. Clinical studies may need to clarify if the lower ultimate load to failure for the ASPBT technique is clinically significant.
本研究旨在(1)评估关节镜下胸大肌上缘肱二头肌固定术(ASPBT)和开放胸小肌下肱二头肌固定术(OSPBT)技术对肱二头肌长头长度 - 张力的体外恢复情况,以及(2)评估肱骨近端的位置如何影响使用干涉螺钉植入物进行固定术的拔出强度。
将18对匹配的尸体肩部随机分为OSPBT组或ASPBT组(每组9个)。采用临床技术进行固定术。术前,在肱二头肌肌腱中放置一个金属珠并获得荧光透视图像。术后,获取图像以评估固定术和金属珠的位置并确定张力。然后进行生物力学失效负荷测试。
与OSPBT组的0.78±0.35 cm相比,ASPBT技术导致肱二头肌平均过度拉伸2.15±0.62 cm(P <.001)。ASPBT组的平均失效负荷为138.8±29.1 N,而OSPBT组为197±38.6 N(P =.002)。ASPBT组中因植入物拔出导致的失效明显比OSPBT组(9个中的1个)更频繁(9个中的7个)。
在匹配的尸体标本中,所描述的使用干涉螺钉植入物的ASPBT技术有使肱二头肌过度拉伸的倾向,并且与开放胸小肌下技术相比,其最终失效负荷显著降低。
本研究显示了OSPBT和ASPBT生物力学特性的差异。可能需要对当前发表的ASPBT技术进行改进,以改善肱二头肌生理长度 - 张力关系的恢复。临床研究可能需要阐明ASPBT技术较低的最终失效负荷在临床上是否具有重要意义。