Proximal versus distal screw placement for biceps tenodesis: a biomechanical study.
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong)
; 24(2): 258-61, 2016 08.
Article
em En
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-27574274
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE:
To assess the maximum and end torque of a fourth-generation composite humerus model with no screw inserted or with a screw inserted in the distal (subpectoral) position or proximal (suprapectoral) position.METHODS:
24 large-size, fourth-generation composite humeri were randomised to the control (n=8), proximal (n=8), or distal (n=8) group. For the latter 2 groups, an 8-mm-head interference screw (7x25 mm) was inserted at 1 cm proximal and 1 cm distal to the superior aspect of the insertion of the pectoralis major tendon, respectively. The maximum and end torque of each humerus was assessed.RESULTS:
Respectively for the control, proximal, and distal groups, the maximum torque was 81.8, 78.7, and 74.3 Nm, and the end torque was 80.7, 78.6, and 71.8 Nm; only the difference between control and distal groups was significant (p=0.005 for maximum torque and p=0.033 for end torque). All fractures in both control and proximal groups involved the distal 1/3 humerus. In the distal group, the fractures involved either the distal 1/3 humerus (n=6) or the screw-hole (n=2); the difference between the 2 types of fracture was not significant in terms of maximum torque (75.7 vs. 70.0, p=0.086) or end torque (75.3 vs. 61.4, p=0.40).CONCLUSION:
Compared with proximal placement of an interference screw, distal placement decreased the maximum torque (though not significantly) and may increase the risk of proximal humeral fracture.Palavras-chave
Buscar no Google
Coleções:
01-internacional
Base de dados:
MEDLINE
Assunto principal:
Tendões
/
Parafusos Ósseos
/
Músculo Esquelético
/
Tenodese
/
Úmero
Tipo de estudo:
Clinical_trials
Limite:
Humans
Idioma:
En
Revista:
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong)
Assunto da revista:
ORTOPEDIA
Ano de publicação:
2016
Tipo de documento:
Article
País de afiliação:
Austrália