RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The biomechanical properties of coracoid fixation with a miniplate during the Latarjet procedure have not been described. PURPOSE: To determine the biomechanical properties of miniplate fixation for the Latarjet procedure compared with various screw fixation configurations. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: A total of 8 groups (n = 5 specimens per group) were tested at a screw insertion angle of 0°: (1) 3.75-mm single screw, (2) 3.75-mm double screw, (3) 3.75-mm double screw with washers, (4) 3.75-mm double screw with a miniplate, (5) 4.00-mm single screw, (6) 4.00-mm double screw, (7) 4.00-mm double screw with washers, and (8) 4.00-mm double screw with a miniplate. In addition, similar to groups 1 to 3 and 5 to 7, there were 30 additional specimens (n = 5 per group) tested at a screw insertion angle of 15° (groups 9-14). To maintain specimen uniformity, rigid polyurethane foam blocks were used. Testing parameters included a preload of 214 N for 10 seconds, cyclical loading from 184 to 736 N at 1 Hz for 100 cycles, and failure loading at a rate of 15 mm/min until 10 mm of displacement or specimen failure occurred. RESULTS: All single-screw constructs and 77% of 15° screw constructs failed before the completion of cyclical loading. Across all groups, group 8 (4.00-mm double screw with miniplate) demonstrated the highest maximum failure load (P < .001). There were no differences in failure loads among specimens with single-screw fixation (groups 1, 5, 9, and 12; P > .05). All specimens in groups 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 (insertion angle of 15°) had significantly lower maximum failure loads compared with specimens in groups 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 (insertion angle of 0°) (P < .001 for all). CONCLUSION: These results indicate significantly superior failure loads with the miniplate compared with all other constructs. Across all fixation techniques and screw sizes, constructs with screws inserted at 0° performed better than constructs with screws inserted at 15°. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of a miniplate for coracoid fixation during the Latarjet procedure may provide a more durable construct for the high-demand contact athlete.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Elbow dislocation represents a common injury, especially in the younger population. If treated surgically, the reattached tendons require a high amount of primary stability to allow for an early rehabilitation to avoid postoperative stiffness. The purpose of this study was to assess the biomechanical properties of a single and a double row technique for reattachment of the common extensor and common flexor muscles origin. We hypothesized that the double row technique would provide greater stability in terms of pullout forces than the single row technique. METHODS: Twelve cadaveric specimens were randomized into two groups of fixation methods for the common extensor tendon or the common flexor tendon at the elbow (1): a single row technique using two knotted 3.0 mm suture anchors, and (2) a double row technique using an additional knotless 3.5 mm anchor. The repairs were cyclically loaded over 500 cycles at 1 Hz from 10 N to a maximum of 100 N (extensors) or 150 N (flexors), and then pulled to failure. Stiffness and maximum load at failure and mode of failure were recorded and calculated. RESULTS: No significant differences in stiffness were observed between the two techniques for both the extensor and flexor reattachment (P = 0.701 and P = 0.306, respectively). The mean maximum load at failure indicated that the double row construct was significantly stronger than the single row construct. This was found to be true for both the extensor and flexor reattachment (213.6; SD 78.7 N versus 384.1; SD 105.6 N, P = 0.010 and 203.7; SD 65.8 N versus 318.0; SD 64.6 N, P = 0.013, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The double row technique provides significant greater stability to the reattached common flexor or extensor origin to the medial or lateral epicondyle. Thus, it should be considered in the development of improved repair techniques for stabilizers of the elbow. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study.