4.5 Article

Biomechanical Comparison of All-Suture Anchor Fixation and Interference Screw Technique for Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2016.01.016

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan [MoST 103-2314-B-006-033-MY3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To compare the biomechanical characteristics of the subpectoral Y-knot all-suture anchor fixation with those of the interference screw technique. Methods: Sixteen fresh-frozen human cadaveric shoulders with a mean age of 67.6 +/- 5.8 years (range, 52 to 74 years) were studied. The specimens were randomly grouped into 2 experimental biceps tenodesis groups (n = 8): Y-knot all-suture anchor or interference screw. The specimens were cyclically tested to failure by applying tensile forces parallel to the longitudinal axis of the humerus. A preload of 5 N was applied for 2 minutes prior to cyclic loading for 500 cycles from 5 to 70 N at 1 Hz; subsequently, a load-to-failure test at 1 mm/s was performed. The ultimate failure load, stiffness, displacement at cyclic and failure loading, and mode of failure were recorded. Results: The all-suture anchor technique displayed values of ultimate failure load and stiffness comparable to that of the interference screw technique. The displacement at cyclic and failure loading of the all-suture anchor trials were significantly greater than the interference screw (P = .0002). The all-suture anchor specimens experienced anchor pullout and tendon tear equally during the trials, whereas the interference screw group experienced tendon tear in most of the cases and screw pullout in 2 trials. Conclusions: The Y-knot all-suture anchor fixation provides equivalent ultimate failure load and stiffness when compared with the interference screw technique in tenodesis of the proximal biceps tendon from a subpectoral approach. However, the interference screw technique demonstrates significantly less displacement in response to cyclic and failure loading.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据