TY - JOUR
T1 - Optimizing Fixation for Distal Biceps Tendon Repairs
T2 - A Systematic Review and Meta-regression of Cadaveric Biomechanical Testing
AU - Taylor, Ainsley L.
AU - Bansal, Ankit
AU - Shi, Brendan Y.
AU - Best, Matthew J.
AU - Huish, Eric G.
AU - Srikumaran, Uma
N1 - Funding Information:
One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: M.J.B. has received education payments from Supreme Orthopedic Systems. E.G.H. has received education payments from Sequoia Surgical (Arthrex) and Smith & Nephew, grant support from Arthrex, and hospitality payments from Stryker and Wright Medical. U.S. has received research support from Encore Medical; education payments from FX Shoulder USA; consulting fees from Corin USA, Coventus Orthopaedics, Heron Therapeutics, Pacira Pharmaceuticals, and Smith & Nephew; nonconsulting fees from FX Shoulder USA and Smith & Nephew; honoraria from Coventus; and hospitality payments from Integra Lifesciences, Smith & Nephew, Tornier, and Zimmer Biomet. 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:
© 2021 The Author(s).
PY - 2021/9
Y1 - 2021/9
N2 - Background: Various surgical techniques can be used to repair acute distal biceps tendon (DBT) tears; however, it is unknown which type of repair or implant has the greatest biomechanical strength and presents the lowest risk of type 2 failure. Purpose: To identify associations between the type of implant or construct used and the biomechanical performance of DBT repairs in a review of human cadaveric studies. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-regression. Methods: We systematically searched the EMBASE and Medline (PubMed) databases for biomechanical studies that evaluated DBT repair performance in cadaveric specimens. Two independent reviewers extracted data from 14 studies that met our inclusion criteria. The pooled data set was subjected to meta-regression with adjusted failure load (AFL) as the primary outcome variable. Procedural parameters, such as number of sutures, cortices, locking stitches, and whipstitches, served as covariates. Adjusted analysis was performed to determine the differences among implant types. The alpha level was set at.05. Results: When using no implant (bone tunnels) as the referent, no fixation type or procedural parameter was significantly better at predicting AFL. Cortical button fixation had the highest AFL (370 N; 95% CI, −2 to 221). In an implant-to-implant comparison, suture anchor alone was significantly weaker than cortical button (154 N; 95% CI, 30 to 279). Constructs using a cortical button and interference screw were not stronger (as measured by AFL) than those using a cortical button alone. The presence of a locking stitch added 113 N (95% CI, 29 to 196) to the AFL. The use of cortical button instead of interference screws or bone tunnels was associated with lower odds of type 2 failure. Avoiding locking stitches and using more sutures in the construct were also associated with lower odds of type 2 failure. Conclusion: Cortical button fixation is associated with greater construct strength than is suture anchor repair and a lower risk of type 2 failure compared with interference screw fixation or fixation without implants. The addition of an interference screw to cortical button fixation was not associated with increased strength. The presence of a locking stitch added 113 N to the failure load but also increased the odds of type 2 failure.
AB - Background: Various surgical techniques can be used to repair acute distal biceps tendon (DBT) tears; however, it is unknown which type of repair or implant has the greatest biomechanical strength and presents the lowest risk of type 2 failure. Purpose: To identify associations between the type of implant or construct used and the biomechanical performance of DBT repairs in a review of human cadaveric studies. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-regression. Methods: We systematically searched the EMBASE and Medline (PubMed) databases for biomechanical studies that evaluated DBT repair performance in cadaveric specimens. Two independent reviewers extracted data from 14 studies that met our inclusion criteria. The pooled data set was subjected to meta-regression with adjusted failure load (AFL) as the primary outcome variable. Procedural parameters, such as number of sutures, cortices, locking stitches, and whipstitches, served as covariates. Adjusted analysis was performed to determine the differences among implant types. The alpha level was set at.05. Results: When using no implant (bone tunnels) as the referent, no fixation type or procedural parameter was significantly better at predicting AFL. Cortical button fixation had the highest AFL (370 N; 95% CI, −2 to 221). In an implant-to-implant comparison, suture anchor alone was significantly weaker than cortical button (154 N; 95% CI, 30 to 279). Constructs using a cortical button and interference screw were not stronger (as measured by AFL) than those using a cortical button alone. The presence of a locking stitch added 113 N (95% CI, 29 to 196) to the AFL. The use of cortical button instead of interference screws or bone tunnels was associated with lower odds of type 2 failure. Avoiding locking stitches and using more sutures in the construct were also associated with lower odds of type 2 failure. Conclusion: Cortical button fixation is associated with greater construct strength than is suture anchor repair and a lower risk of type 2 failure compared with interference screw fixation or fixation without implants. The addition of an interference screw to cortical button fixation was not associated with increased strength. The presence of a locking stitch added 113 N to the failure load but also increased the odds of type 2 failure.
KW - adjusted failure load
KW - biomechanical
KW - distal biceps tendon repair
KW - meta-regression
KW - ultimate failure load
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85100899794&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85100899794&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/0363546520986999
DO - 10.1177/0363546520986999
M3 - Article
C2 - 33596088
AN - SCOPUS:85100899794
SN - 0363-5465
VL - 49
SP - 3125
EP - 3131
JO - American Journal of Sports Medicine
JF - American Journal of Sports Medicine
IS - 11
ER -