Purpose
The purpose of our study was to compare biomechanically a long head biceps tenodesis
using an all soft tissue biceps sling technique versus an interference screw technique.
Methods
Six paired fresh frozen shoulder specimens were separated into 2 groups. One group
used an all soft tissue biceps sling technique for tenodesis. The other group used
the interference screw technique for subpectoral tenodesis of the long head biceps
tendon. Specimens in both groups were sequentially loaded for 200 cycles, and the
difference between the initial and final displacements were recorded. Specimens were
then loaded to failure. Load and mode of failure were recorded.
Results
The mean displacement of all specimens undergoing the sling technique was significantly
less than that of the interference technique at 3.0 mm (±0.80) versus 5.0 mm (±1.08)
(P < .05). The biceps sling technique had a higher mean ultimate failure load (UFL)
than did the interference screw tenodesis (216.9 N ± 91.6 v 171.7 N ± 101.4), although this was not statistically significant (P = .63). In the interference screw technique, 4 specimens failed at the tenodesis
site by either tearing or complete pullout, whereas 2 failed at the biceps myotendinous
junction. In the sling technique, 4 specimens failed at the biceps myotendinous junction,
whereas one specimen tore at the tenodesis site and one detached the pectoralis tendon
insertion from the humerus. One specimen in the biceps sling technique and 2 specimens
in the interference screw technique failed before completing all 200 cycles.
Conclusions
The results of this biomechanical study show that the biceps sling technique has construct
stability similar to that of the interference screw technique.
Clinical Relevance
The biceps sling may be a reasonable alternative for treating symptomatic pathologic
conditions of the long head biceps tendon.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to ArthroscopyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Tenodesis of the long head of biceps brachii in the painful shoulder: Improving results in the long term.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1995; 4: 429-435
- Treatment of biceps tendon lesions in the setting of rotator cuff tears: Prospective cohort study of tenotomy versus tenodesis.Am J Sports Med. 2010; 38: 1584-1590
- The proximal biceps as a pain generator and results of tenotomy.Sports Med Arthrosc. 2008; 16: 180-186
- Long head of biceps tendon pathology: Management alternatives.Clin Sports Med. 2008; 27: 747-762
- Suture anchor and percutaneous intra-articular transtendon biceps tenodesis.Sports Med Arthrosc. 2008; 16: 177-179
- Mechanical strength of four different biceps tenodesis techniques.Arthroscopy. 2005; 21: 992-998
- Biomechanical evaluation of 2 arthroscopic biceps tenodeses: Double-anchor versus percutaneous intra-articular transtendon (PITT) techniques.Am J Sports Med. 2010; 38: 146-152
- Arthroscopic biceps tendon tenodesis: The anchorage technical note.Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006; 14: 581-585
- Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis: A new technique using bioabsorbable interference screw fixation.Arthroscopy. 2002; 18: 1002-1012
- Interference screw versus suture anchor fixation for subpectoral tenodesis of the proximal biceps tendon: A cadaveric study.Arthroscopy. 2008; 24: 1103-1108
- Subpectoral biceps tenodesis with interference screw fixation.Arthroscopy. 2005; 21: 896
- Arthroscopic transfer of the long head of the biceps tendon: Functional outcome and clinical results.Arthroscopy. 2008; 24: 217-223
- Tenodesis of the long head of biceps brachii: Cyclic testing of five methods of fixation in a porcine model.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008; 17: 967-973
- Biomechanical comparison of arthroscopically performable techniques for suprapectoral biceps tenodesis.Arthroscopy. 2011; 27: 1036-1047
- Suprapectoral or subpectoral position for biceps tenodesis: Biomechanical comparison of four different techniques in both positions.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012; 21: 116-125
- Humeral fracture after keyhole tenodesis.Magy Traumatol Orthop Helyreallito Seb. 1990; 33 ([Article in Hungarian]): 234-236
- Humeral fracture following subpectoral biceps tenodesis in 2 active, healthy patients.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011; 20: e7-e11
- Proximal humerus fracture after keyhole biceps tenodesis.Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2010; 39: E61-E63
- Failure of biceps tenodesis with interference screw fixation.Arthroscopy. 2012; 28: 735-740
- Transpectoral biceps sling tenodesis: Surgical technique.Techniques Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011; 12: 32-35
- A low-cost thermoelectrically cooled tissue clamp for in vitro cyclic loading and load-to-failure testing of muscles and tendons.Med Eng Phys. 2009; 31: 1182-1186
- Tenotomy versus tenodesis in the management of pathologic lesions of the tendon of the long head of the biceps brachii.Am J Sports Med. 2009; 37: 828-833
- Long head biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: A cadaveric biomechanical analysis.Arthroscopy. 2005; 21: 182-185
- Biceps tenodesis: A biomechanical study of fixation methods.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004; 13: 160-164
- The biomechanical evaluation of four fixation techniques for proximal biceps tenodesis.Arthroscopy. 2005; 21: 1296-1306
- Interference screw vs. suture anchor fixation for open subpectoral biceps tenodesis: Does it matter?.BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008; 9: 121
- A biomechanical analysis of two biceps tenodesis fixation techniques.Arthroscopy. 2005; 21: 861-866
- Complications associated with subpectoral biceps tenodesis: Low rates of incidence following surgery.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010; 19: 764-768
- Biceps tenodesis with interference screw fixation: A biomechanical comparison of screw length and diameter.Arthroscopy. 2011; 27: 161-166
Article info
Publication history
Published online: May 31, 2013
Accepted:
April 3,
2013
Received:
September 1,
2012
Footnotes
Supported in part by a resident research grant from Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation, Rosemont, Illinois. The interference screws and suture used in the study were donated by Arthrex, Naples, Florida. The authors report that they have no conflicts of interest in the authorship and publication of this article.
Identification
Copyright
© 2013 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
