Cargando…

Double Tension Slide Technique as a Novel Repair for Distal Biceps Tendon Tear: A Biomechanical Evaluation

Background A comparative biomechanical analysis of two distal biceps tendon repair techniques was performed: a single suture tension slide technique (TST) and two suture double tension slide (DTS) technique. Methodology Ten matched pairs of fresh frozen human cadaveric elbows (20 elbows) were random...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sochacki, Kyle R, Jack, Robert A, Lawson, Zachary T, Dong, David, Robbins, Andrew B, Moreno, Michael R, McCulloch, Patrick
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cureus 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8046694/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33880251
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.13895
_version_ 1783678902313418752
author Sochacki, Kyle R
Jack, Robert A
Lawson, Zachary T
Dong, David
Robbins, Andrew B
Moreno, Michael R
McCulloch, Patrick
author_facet Sochacki, Kyle R
Jack, Robert A
Lawson, Zachary T
Dong, David
Robbins, Andrew B
Moreno, Michael R
McCulloch, Patrick
author_sort Sochacki, Kyle R
collection PubMed
description Background A comparative biomechanical analysis of two distal biceps tendon repair techniques was performed: a single suture tension slide technique (TST) and two suture double tension slide (DTS) technique. Methodology Ten matched pairs of fresh frozen human cadaveric elbows (20 elbows) were randomly separated into two cohorts for distal biceps tendon repair. One cohort underwent the TST, and the other underwent the DTS technique. The tendon was preconditioned with cyclic loading from 0° to 90° at 0.5 Hz for 3,600 cycles with a 50 N load. The specimens were then loaded to failure at a rate of 1 mm/s. The difference in the load to failure between the groups was analyzed using the Student’s t test. The mode of failure was compared between groups using the chi-square test. All p-values were reported with significance set at p < 0.05. Results Overall, 77.8% of the included matched pairs demonstrated greater load to failure in the DTS group. The mean load to failure in the DTS group was 383.3 ± 149.3 N compared to 275.8 ± 98.1 N in the TST group (p = 0.13). The DTS specimens failed at the tendon (5/9), suture (3/9), and bone (1/9). The TST specimens failed at the tendon (4/9) and suture (5/9) only. There was no significant difference in failure type between groups (p = 0.76). Conclusions DTS demonstrates a similar to greater load to failure compared to TST with a trend towards statistical significance. The redundancy provided by the second suture has an inherent advantage without compromising the biomechanical testing.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8046694
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Cureus
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80466942021-04-19 Double Tension Slide Technique as a Novel Repair for Distal Biceps Tendon Tear: A Biomechanical Evaluation Sochacki, Kyle R Jack, Robert A Lawson, Zachary T Dong, David Robbins, Andrew B Moreno, Michael R McCulloch, Patrick Cureus Orthopedics Background A comparative biomechanical analysis of two distal biceps tendon repair techniques was performed: a single suture tension slide technique (TST) and two suture double tension slide (DTS) technique. Methodology Ten matched pairs of fresh frozen human cadaveric elbows (20 elbows) were randomly separated into two cohorts for distal biceps tendon repair. One cohort underwent the TST, and the other underwent the DTS technique. The tendon was preconditioned with cyclic loading from 0° to 90° at 0.5 Hz for 3,600 cycles with a 50 N load. The specimens were then loaded to failure at a rate of 1 mm/s. The difference in the load to failure between the groups was analyzed using the Student’s t test. The mode of failure was compared between groups using the chi-square test. All p-values were reported with significance set at p < 0.05. Results Overall, 77.8% of the included matched pairs demonstrated greater load to failure in the DTS group. The mean load to failure in the DTS group was 383.3 ± 149.3 N compared to 275.8 ± 98.1 N in the TST group (p = 0.13). The DTS specimens failed at the tendon (5/9), suture (3/9), and bone (1/9). The TST specimens failed at the tendon (4/9) and suture (5/9) only. There was no significant difference in failure type between groups (p = 0.76). Conclusions DTS demonstrates a similar to greater load to failure compared to TST with a trend towards statistical significance. The redundancy provided by the second suture has an inherent advantage without compromising the biomechanical testing. Cureus 2021-03-15 /pmc/articles/PMC8046694/ /pubmed/33880251 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.13895 Text en Copyright © 2021, Sochacki et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Orthopedics
Sochacki, Kyle R
Jack, Robert A
Lawson, Zachary T
Dong, David
Robbins, Andrew B
Moreno, Michael R
McCulloch, Patrick
Double Tension Slide Technique as a Novel Repair for Distal Biceps Tendon Tear: A Biomechanical Evaluation
title Double Tension Slide Technique as a Novel Repair for Distal Biceps Tendon Tear: A Biomechanical Evaluation
title_full Double Tension Slide Technique as a Novel Repair for Distal Biceps Tendon Tear: A Biomechanical Evaluation
title_fullStr Double Tension Slide Technique as a Novel Repair for Distal Biceps Tendon Tear: A Biomechanical Evaluation
title_full_unstemmed Double Tension Slide Technique as a Novel Repair for Distal Biceps Tendon Tear: A Biomechanical Evaluation
title_short Double Tension Slide Technique as a Novel Repair for Distal Biceps Tendon Tear: A Biomechanical Evaluation
title_sort double tension slide technique as a novel repair for distal biceps tendon tear: a biomechanical evaluation
topic Orthopedics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8046694/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33880251
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.13895
work_keys_str_mv AT sochackikyler doubletensionslidetechniqueasanovelrepairfordistalbicepstendontearabiomechanicalevaluation
AT jackroberta doubletensionslidetechniqueasanovelrepairfordistalbicepstendontearabiomechanicalevaluation
AT lawsonzacharyt doubletensionslidetechniqueasanovelrepairfordistalbicepstendontearabiomechanicalevaluation
AT dongdavid doubletensionslidetechniqueasanovelrepairfordistalbicepstendontearabiomechanicalevaluation
AT robbinsandrewb doubletensionslidetechniqueasanovelrepairfordistalbicepstendontearabiomechanicalevaluation
AT morenomichaelr doubletensionslidetechniqueasanovelrepairfordistalbicepstendontearabiomechanicalevaluation
AT mccullochpatrick doubletensionslidetechniqueasanovelrepairfordistalbicepstendontearabiomechanicalevaluation