Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2015 Mar;23(3):926-33.
doi: 10.1007/s00167-013-2590-0. Epub 2013 Jul 6.

Double intramedullary cortical button versus suture anchors for distal biceps tendon repair: a biomechanical comparison

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Double intramedullary cortical button versus suture anchors for distal biceps tendon repair: a biomechanical comparison

Sebastian Siebenlist et al. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015 Mar.

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this biomechanical in vitro study was to compare the novel technique of double intramedullary cortical button (DICB) fixation with the well-established method of suture anchor (SA) fixation for distal biceps tendon repair.

Methods: A matched-pair analysis (24 human cadaveric radii) was performed with respect to cyclic loadings and failure strengths. Twelve specimens per group were cyclically loaded for 1,000 cycles at 1.5 Hz from 5 to 50 N and from 5 to 100 N, respectively. The tendon-bone displacement was optically analysed using the Image J Software (National Institute of Health). Afterwards, all specimens were pulled to failure. Maximum load to failure and mode of failure were recorded.

Results: All DICB constructs passed the cyclic loading test, whereas 4 of the 12 specimens within the SA group failed by anchor pull-out. Cyclic loading showed a mean tendon-bone displacement of 0.6 ± 1.4 mm for the DICB group and 1.4 ± 1.4 mm for the SA group (n.s.) after 1,000 cycles with 50 N, and a mean displacement of 2.1 ± 2.4 mm for the DICB group and 3.5 ± 3.7 mm for the SA group (n.s.) after 1,000 cycles with 100 N. Load to failure testing showed a mean failure load of 312 ± 76 N and a stiffness of 67.1 ± 11.7 N/mm for the DICB technique. The mean load to failure for the SA repair was 200 ± 120 N (n.s.) and the stiffness was 55.9 ± 21.3 N/mm (n.s.).

Conclusions: The novel technique of DICB fixation showed small tendon-bone displacement during cyclic testing and reliable fixation strength to the bone in load to failure. Moreover, all DICB constructs passed cyclic loadings without failure. Based on the current findings, a more aggressive postoperative rehabilitation may be allowed for the DICB repair in clinical use.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Am J Sports Med. 2009 May;37(5):989-94 - PubMed
    1. Arthroscopy. 2011 Aug;27(8):1048-54 - PubMed
    1. Am J Sports Med. 2002 May-Jun;30(3):432-6 - PubMed
    1. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011 Nov;19(11):1930-5 - PubMed
    1. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002 Nov;(404):275-83 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources