TY - JOUR
T1 - Are Implant Choice and Surgical Approach Associated With Biceps Tenodesis Construct Strength? A Systematic Review and Meta-regression
AU - Aida, Hiroshi F.
AU - Shi, Brendan Y.
AU - Huish, Eric G.
AU - McFarland, Edward G.
AU - Srikumaran, Uma
N1 - Funding Information:
These findings suggest that fixation with interference screws, rather than suture anchors, and the use of more sutures are associated with greater biceps tenodesis strength, as well as higher odds of native tissue failure versus implant pullout. Although constructs with suture anchors show inferior UFL compared with those with interference screws, incorporation of additional sutures may increase the strength of suture anchor constructs. Supra- and subpectoral repairs provide equivalent biomechanical strength when controlling for potential confounders. biceps tenodesis biomechanical strength interference screw mode of failure subpectoral repair suprapectoral repair suture anchor ultimate failure load edited-state corrected-proof The authors thank Timothy Phelps for his illustrations depicting the modes of failure. One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: U.S. has received consultant/speaker/symposium payments from Conventus Orthopaedics, Fx Shoulder USA, and Tigon Medical; consulting fees from Coring USA, Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Heron Therapeutics, and Smith & Nephew; research funding from Smith & Nephew; clinical trial contracts with Orthospace, Wright Medical, Conventus, and Integra; fellowship funding from Arthrex, DePuy, Wright/Tornier, Smith & Nephew, OMEGA, and ASES; and hospitality payments from Tornier and Integra Lifesciences. E.G.M. has received consulting fees from Stryker Corporation and education payments from Pacira Pharmaceuticals. E.G.H. has received education payments from Sequoia Surgical (on behalf of Arthrex). AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 The Author(s).
PY - 2020/4/1
Y1 - 2020/4/1
N2 - Background: Despite the increasing use of biceps tenodesis, there is a lack of consensus regarding optimal implant choice (suture anchor vs interference screw) and implant placement (suprapectoral vs subpectoral). Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to determine the associations of procedural parameters with the biomechanical performance of biceps tenodesis constructs. The authors hypothesized that ultimate failure load (UFL) would not differ between sub- and suprapectoral repairs or between interference screw and suture anchor constructs and that the number of implants and number of sutures would be positively associated with construct strength. Study Design: Meta-analysis. Methods: The authors conducted a systematic literature search for studies that measured the biomechanical performance of biceps tenodesis repairs in human cadaveric specimens. Two independent reviewers extracted data from studies that met the inclusion criteria. Meta-regression was then performed on the pooled data set. Outcome variables were UFL and mode of failure. Procedural parameters (fixation type, fixation site, implant diameter, and numbers of implants and sutures used) were included as covariates. Twenty-five biomechanical studies, representing 494 cadaveric specimens, met the inclusion criteria. Results: The use of interference screws (vs suture anchors) was associated with a mean 86 N–greater UFL (95% CI, 34-138 N; P =.002). Each additional suture used to attach the tendon to the implant was associated with a mean 53 N–greater UFL (95% CI, 24-81 N; P =.001). Multivariate analysis found no significant association between fixation site and UFL. Finally, the use of suture anchors and fewer number of sutures were both independently associated with lower odds of native tissue failure as opposed to implant pullout. Conclusion: These findings suggest that fixation with interference screws, rather than suture anchors, and the use of more sutures are associated with greater biceps tenodesis strength, as well as higher odds of native tissue failure versus implant pullout. Although constructs with suture anchors show inferior UFL compared with those with interference screws, incorporation of additional sutures may increase the strength of suture anchor constructs. Supra- and subpectoral repairs provide equivalent biomechanical strength when controlling for potential confounders.
AB - Background: Despite the increasing use of biceps tenodesis, there is a lack of consensus regarding optimal implant choice (suture anchor vs interference screw) and implant placement (suprapectoral vs subpectoral). Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to determine the associations of procedural parameters with the biomechanical performance of biceps tenodesis constructs. The authors hypothesized that ultimate failure load (UFL) would not differ between sub- and suprapectoral repairs or between interference screw and suture anchor constructs and that the number of implants and number of sutures would be positively associated with construct strength. Study Design: Meta-analysis. Methods: The authors conducted a systematic literature search for studies that measured the biomechanical performance of biceps tenodesis repairs in human cadaveric specimens. Two independent reviewers extracted data from studies that met the inclusion criteria. Meta-regression was then performed on the pooled data set. Outcome variables were UFL and mode of failure. Procedural parameters (fixation type, fixation site, implant diameter, and numbers of implants and sutures used) were included as covariates. Twenty-five biomechanical studies, representing 494 cadaveric specimens, met the inclusion criteria. Results: The use of interference screws (vs suture anchors) was associated with a mean 86 N–greater UFL (95% CI, 34-138 N; P =.002). Each additional suture used to attach the tendon to the implant was associated with a mean 53 N–greater UFL (95% CI, 24-81 N; P =.001). Multivariate analysis found no significant association between fixation site and UFL. Finally, the use of suture anchors and fewer number of sutures were both independently associated with lower odds of native tissue failure as opposed to implant pullout. Conclusion: These findings suggest that fixation with interference screws, rather than suture anchors, and the use of more sutures are associated with greater biceps tenodesis strength, as well as higher odds of native tissue failure versus implant pullout. Although constructs with suture anchors show inferior UFL compared with those with interference screws, incorporation of additional sutures may increase the strength of suture anchor constructs. Supra- and subpectoral repairs provide equivalent biomechanical strength when controlling for potential confounders.
KW - biceps tenodesis
KW - biomechanical strength
KW - interference screw
KW - mode of failure
KW - subpectoral repair
KW - suprapectoral repair
KW - suture anchor
KW - ultimate failure load
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85074030919&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85074030919&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/0363546519876107
DO - 10.1177/0363546519876107
M3 - Article
C2 - 31585053
AN - SCOPUS:85074030919
VL - 48
SP - 1273
EP - 1280
JO - The Journal of sports medicine
JF - The Journal of sports medicine
SN - 0363-5465
IS - 5
ER -