Cargando…

Biomechanical evaluation of the long head of the biceps brachii tendon fixed by three techniques: a sheep model()

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the biomechanical properties of the fixation of the long head of the biceps brachii into the humeral bone with suture anchors, interference screw, and soft tissue suture, comparing strength, highest traction load, and types of fixation failure. METHODS: Thirty fresh-frozen she...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ramos, Carlos Henrique, Coelho, Júlio Cezar Uili
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5290131/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28194382
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rboe.2016.12.008
_version_ 1782504597166751744
author Ramos, Carlos Henrique
Coelho, Júlio Cezar Uili
author_facet Ramos, Carlos Henrique
Coelho, Júlio Cezar Uili
author_sort Ramos, Carlos Henrique
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the biomechanical properties of the fixation of the long head of the biceps brachii into the humeral bone with suture anchors, interference screw, and soft tissue suture, comparing strength, highest traction load, and types of fixation failure. METHODS: Thirty fresh-frozen sheep shoulders were used, separated into three groups of ten for each technique. After fixation, the tendons were subjected to longitudinal continuous loading, obtaining load-to-failure (N) and displacement (mm). RESULTS: The mean load-to-failure for suture anchors was 95 ± 35.3 N, 152.7 ± 52.7 N for interference screw, and 104.7 ± 23.54 N for soft tissue technique. There was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05), with interference screw demonstrating higher load-to-failure than suture anchor fixation (p = 0.00307) and soft tissue (p = 0.00473). The strength of interference screw was also superior when compared with the other two methods (p = 0.0000127 and p = 0.00000295, respectively). There were no differences between suture anchors and soft tissue technique regarding load-to-failure (p = 0.9420) and strength (p = 0.141). CONCLUSION: Tenodesis of the long head of the biceps brachii with interference screw was stronger than the suture anchors and soft tissue techniques. The other two techniques did not differ between themselves.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5290131
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-52901312017-02-13 Biomechanical evaluation of the long head of the biceps brachii tendon fixed by three techniques: a sheep model() Ramos, Carlos Henrique Coelho, Júlio Cezar Uili Rev Bras Ortop Original Article OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the biomechanical properties of the fixation of the long head of the biceps brachii into the humeral bone with suture anchors, interference screw, and soft tissue suture, comparing strength, highest traction load, and types of fixation failure. METHODS: Thirty fresh-frozen sheep shoulders were used, separated into three groups of ten for each technique. After fixation, the tendons were subjected to longitudinal continuous loading, obtaining load-to-failure (N) and displacement (mm). RESULTS: The mean load-to-failure for suture anchors was 95 ± 35.3 N, 152.7 ± 52.7 N for interference screw, and 104.7 ± 23.54 N for soft tissue technique. There was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05), with interference screw demonstrating higher load-to-failure than suture anchor fixation (p = 0.00307) and soft tissue (p = 0.00473). The strength of interference screw was also superior when compared with the other two methods (p = 0.0000127 and p = 0.00000295, respectively). There were no differences between suture anchors and soft tissue technique regarding load-to-failure (p = 0.9420) and strength (p = 0.141). CONCLUSION: Tenodesis of the long head of the biceps brachii with interference screw was stronger than the suture anchors and soft tissue techniques. The other two techniques did not differ between themselves. Elsevier 2016-12-30 /pmc/articles/PMC5290131/ /pubmed/28194382 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rboe.2016.12.008 Text en © 2016 Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia. Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Ramos, Carlos Henrique
Coelho, Júlio Cezar Uili
Biomechanical evaluation of the long head of the biceps brachii tendon fixed by three techniques: a sheep model()
title Biomechanical evaluation of the long head of the biceps brachii tendon fixed by three techniques: a sheep model()
title_full Biomechanical evaluation of the long head of the biceps brachii tendon fixed by three techniques: a sheep model()
title_fullStr Biomechanical evaluation of the long head of the biceps brachii tendon fixed by three techniques: a sheep model()
title_full_unstemmed Biomechanical evaluation of the long head of the biceps brachii tendon fixed by three techniques: a sheep model()
title_short Biomechanical evaluation of the long head of the biceps brachii tendon fixed by three techniques: a sheep model()
title_sort biomechanical evaluation of the long head of the biceps brachii tendon fixed by three techniques: a sheep model()
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5290131/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28194382
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rboe.2016.12.008
work_keys_str_mv AT ramoscarloshenrique biomechanicalevaluationofthelongheadofthebicepsbrachiitendonfixedbythreetechniquesasheepmodel
AT coelhojuliocezaruili biomechanicalevaluationofthelongheadofthebicepsbrachiitendonfixedbythreetechniquesasheepmodel