RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Distal biceps tendon repair is usually performed via a double-incision or single-incision bicortical drilling technique. However, these techniques are associated with specific complications and usually do not allow for anatomic footprint restoration. It was the aim of this study to report the clinical results of a double intracortical button anatomic footprint repair technique for distal biceps tendon tears. We hypothesized that this technique would result in supination strength comparable to the uninjured side with a low rerupture rate and minimal bony or neurologic complications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-surgeon cohort study of a consecutive series of 22 patients with a mean (standard deviation) age of 50.7 (9.4) years and at least 1-year follow-up after distal biceps tendon repair. At final follow-up, complications, range of motion (ROM), the Patient-rated Elbow Evaluation (PREE), Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, patient satisfaction, and supination strength in neutral as well as 60° of supination were analyzed. Radiographic evaluation was performed on a computed tomography scan. RESULTS: One patient (4.5%) experienced slight paresthesia in the area of the lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve. Heterotopic ossification was seen in 1 patient (4.5%). All patients recovered full ROM except for 1 who had 10° of loss of flexion and extension. Median PREE score was 4.6 (0-39.6), median MEP was 100 (70-100), and median DASH score was 1.4 (0-16.7). All but 1 patient were very satisfied with the outcome. The affected arm had a mean of 98% (±13%) of neutral supination strength (P = .633) and 94% (±12%) of supination strength in 60° (P = .054) compared with the contralateral, unaffected side. There were 4 cases (18.2%) of cortical thinning due to at least 1 button and 1 case of button pullout (4.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The double intracortical button anatomic footprint repair technique seems to provide reliable restoration of supination strength and excellent patient satisfaction while minimizing complications, particularly nerve damage and heterotopic ossification.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Extracortical single-button (SB) inlay repair is a commonly used distal biceps tendon technique. However, complications (eg, neurovascular injury) and nonanatomic repairs have led to the development of intracortical fixation techniques. PURPOSE: To compare the biomechanical stability of extracortical SB repair with an anatomic intracortical double-button (DB) repair technique. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: The distal biceps tendon was transected in 18 cadaveric elbows from 9 donors. One elbow of each donor was randomly assigned to the extracortical SB or anatomic DB group. Both groups were cyclically loaded with 60 N over 1000 cycles between 90° of flexion and full extension. The elbow was then fixed in 90° of flexion and the repair construct loaded to failure. Gap formation and construct stiffness during cyclic loading and ultimate load to failure were analyzed. RESULTS: When compared with the extracortical SB technique after 1000 cycles, the anatomic DB technique showed significantly less gap formation (mean ± SD, 2.7 ± 0.8 vs 1.5 ± 0.9 mm; P = .017) and significantly more construct stiffness (87.4 ± 32.7 vs 119.9 ± 31.6 N/mm; P = .023). Ultimate load to failure was not significantly different between the groups (277 ± 93 vs 285 ± 135 N; P = .859). The failure mode in the anatomic DB group was significantly different from that of the extracortical SB technique (P = .002) and was due to fracture avulsion of the cortical button in 7 of 9 specimens (vs none in the SB group). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that the intracortical DB technique produces equivalent or superior biomechanical performance to that of the SB technique. The DB technique may offer a clinically viable alternative to the SB repair technique. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study suggests, at worst, an equivalent and, at best, a superior biomechanical performance of intracortical anatomic DB footprint repair at the time of surgery. However, the mode of failure suggests that this technique should not be used in patients with poor bone quality.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: Surgical pectoralis major (PM) repair can offer improved functional outcomes over nonoperative treatment. However, there is a lack of literature on consensus of the anatomical site of the humeral attachment. Purpose: To provide qualitative and quantitative anatomic analysis of the PM by focusing on humeral insertion and relevant structures at risk. Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Methods: Eight fresh-frozen male cadavers were dissected. The relevant landmarks that were collected and measured included (1) PM footprint length at the humeral insertion (total, sternal head, and clavicular head insertions); (2) PM tendon length from the humeral insertion to the musculotendinous junction; (3) distance from the PM humeral insertion to the lateral (LPN) and medial (MPN) pectoral nerves; and (4) distance from the coracoid process to the musculocutaneous nerve (MCN) in anatomical position. Results: The total PM footprint length was 81.4 mm (95% CI, 71.4-91.3). The sternal and clavicular heads that make up the PM had footprint lengths of 42.1 mm (95% CI, 32.9-51.4) and 56.6 mm (95% CI, 46.5-66.7), respectively. The PM tendon was wider at the clavicular head (74.7 mm; 95% CI, 67.5-81.7) than the sternal head insertions (43.0 mm; 95% CI, 40.1-45.9). The distances from the PM humeral insertion to LPN and MPN were 93.2 mm (95% CI, 83.1-103.3) and 103.8 mm (95% CI, 98.3-109.4), respectively. The coracoid process to MCN distance was 68.5 mm (95% CI, 60.2-76.8). Conclusion: This study successfully quantifies anatomic dimensions of the PM tendon, its sternal and clavicular head insertions, and its location relative to nearby vital structures. Such knowledge can provide surgeons with a better understanding of the PM in relation to nearby neurovascular structures during anatomic PM repair and reconstruction to avoid debilitating complications. Clinical Relevance: Knowledge of the quantitative anatomy of the PM at the humeral footprint along structures at risk may aid surgeons with identifying the injured part of the PM and improve outcomes for anatomic repair and reconstruction.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to evaluate whether or not there was any incompatibility between two-strand hamstring tendons taken from the same knee and the ATFL and it was the determination of suitable footprint points in the fibula and talus for anatomical ATFL reconstruction. METHODS: 16 fresh frozen cadaver specimens were dissected to gracilis and semitendinosus tendons and the anterior talofibular ligament. The origins, insertions, distances from osseous landmarks of fibular talus of ATFL were determined. The diameters of gracilis, semitendinosus and ATFL were calculated. There was a moderate correlation between body height and the distance between the distal of inferior lateral malleolus and the fibular adhesion site of ATFL (r: 36.5 p: 0.036). There was a weak correlation between body height and the distance between the apex of the lateral talar process and the talus adhesion site of ATFL in a single bundle (r: 28.4 p: 0.002). There was no correlation between the distance from proximal and distal adhesion side of ATFL and body height in the double bundle (p: 0.241). RESULTS: There was no significant relationship between ATFL diameter and gracilis, semitendinosus and both hamstring in women. A significant relationship at 80.5% was determined between the ATFL and the gracilis diameter in man. A significant relationship at 92.6% was determined between the ATFL and the semitendinosus diameter in man. CONCLUSION: It was determined that there is not compatibility between the gracilis tendons, the semitendinosus tendon and ATFL in women. It should be supported by biomechanical and clinical studies whether this incompatibility has a clinical effect or not.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Restoring footprint anatomy, minimizing gap formation, and maximizing the strength of distal triceps tendon repairs are essential factors for a successful healing process and return to sport. HYPOTHESIS: The novel V-shaped distal triceps tendon repair technique with unicortical button fixation closely restores footprint anatomy, provides minimal gap formation and high ultimate failure load, and minimizes iatrogenic fracture risk in acute/subacute distal triceps tendon tears. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Twenty-four cadaveric elbows (mean ± SD age, 66 ± 5 years) were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 repair groups: the transosseous cruciate repair technique (gold standard), the knotless suture-bridge repair technique, and the V-shaped distal triceps tendon repair technique. Anatomic measurements of the central triceps tendon footprint were obtained in all specimens with a 3-dimensional digitizer before and after the repair. Cyclic loading was performed for a total of 1500 cycles at a rate of 0.25 Hz, pulling in the direction of the triceps. Displacements were measured on the medial and lateral tendon sites with 2 differential variable reluctance transducers. Load to failure and construct failure mode were recorded. RESULTS: The mean triceps bony insertion area was 399.05 ± 81.23 mm2. The transosseous cruciate repair technique restored 36.6% ± 16.8% of the native tendon insertion area, which was significantly different when compared with the knotless suture-bridge repair technique (85.2% ± 14.8%, P = .001) and the V-shaped distal triceps tendon repair technique (88.9% ± 14.8%, P = .002). Mean displacement showed no significant difference between the V-shaped distal triceps tendon repair technique (medial side, 0.75 ± 0.56 mm; lateral side, 0.99 ± 0.59 mm) and the knotless suture-bridge repair technique (1.61 ± 0.97 mm and 1.29 ± 0.8 mm) but significance between the V-shaped distal triceps tendon repair technique and the transosseous cruciate repair technique (4.91 ± 1.12 mm and 5.78 ± 0.9 mm, P < .001). Mean peak failure load of the V-shaped distal triceps tendon repair technique (732.1 ± 156.0 N) was significantly higher than that of the knotless suture-bridge repair technique (505.4 ± 173.9 N, P = .011) and the transosseous cruciate repair technique (281.1 ± 74.8 N, P < .001). Mechanism of failure differed among the 3 repairs, with the only olecranon fracture occurring in the knotless suture-bridge repair technique at the level of the lateral row suture anchors. CONCLUSION: At time zero, the V-shaped distal triceps tendon repair technique and the knotless suture-bridge repair technique both provided anatomic footprint coverage. Ultimate load to failure was highest for the V-shaped distal triceps tendon repair technique, while gap formation was different only in comparison with the transosseous cruciate repair technique. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The V-shaped distal triceps tendon repair technique provides an alternative procedure to other established repairs for acute/subacute distal triceps tendon ruptures. The reduced repair site motion of the V-shaped distal triceps tendon repair technique and the knotless suture-bridge repair technique at the time of surgery may allow a more aggressive rehabilitation program in the early postoperative period.

Asunto(s)