ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: All-suture buttons (ASB) and interference screw (IS) are commonly utilized in the inlay subpectoral biceps tendon tenodesis. However, the biomechanical characteristics of these two methods have not been compared directly. The aim of present study was to compare the biomechanical properties of ASB versus IS for inlay subpectoral biceps tendon tenodesis in a human cadaveric model. METHODS: Sixteen fresh-frozen human cadaveric shoulders were randomly divided into two experimental inlay biceps tenodesis groups: ASB or IS. After tenodesis, every specimen was preloaded at 5 N for 2 minutes, followed with a cyclic loading test from 5 to 70 N for 500 load cycles. Then the load-to-failure test was performed. Afterwards, the humerus was placed in a cylinder tube and secured with anchoring cement. Lastly, a two-point bending test was performed to determine the strength of the humerus. Destructive axial force was applied, and the failure strength and displacement were recorded. RESULTS: No difference in stiffness was observed between the two groups (ASB=27.4 ± 3.5 N/mm vs IS= 29.7 ± 3.0 N/mm; P=.270). Cyclic displacement was significantly greater in the ASB group (6.8 ± 2.6 mm) than the IS group (3.8 ± 1.1 mm; P=.021). In terms of failure load, there were no statistical differences among the two groups (P=.234). The ASB group was able to withstand significantly greater displacement (11.9 ± 1.6 mm) before failure than the IS group (7.8 ± 1.5mm; P=.001). During the humeral bending test, the ASB group exhibited significantly greater maximal load (2354.8 ± 285.1 N vs 2086.4 ± 296.1 N; P=.046) and larger displacement (17.8 ± 2.8mm vs 14.1± 2.8 mm; P=.027) before fracture. CONCLUSIONS: In inlay subpectoral bicep tenodesis, ASB fixation appears to offer comparable stiffness and failure load to that of IS fixation. Additionally, the ASB group exhibited greater resistance to load and displacement before humeral fracture. However, the ASB group did demonstrate increased cyclic displacement compared to IS group.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The scapular spine has been described as a relatively new bone graft alternative used in glenoid augmentation. The classic Latarjet procedure, which transfers the coracoid as a graft, is regarded as the gold standard. The comparison of these 2 techniques has not been fully reported. PURPOSE: To compare the anatomic and biomechanical properties of glenoid augmentation using scapular spine graft or coracoid graft. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: The study used 20 fresh-frozen human cadaveric shoulders. A 25% anterior glenoid defect was created, and the specimens were divided randomly to receive glenoid augmentation by scapular spine or coracoid grafts. For both procedures, the grafts were secured to the glenoid defect with 2 screws. Morphometric data, including the glenoid articular area, amount of restoration, and graft dimensions, were obtained. A biomechanical test was conducted in a direct-loading scenario. The construct stiffness, cyclic displacement, and ultimate failure of each specimen were collected. RESULTS: No significant difference was found in glenoid articular restoration between the scapular spine group and the coracoid group (31% vs 33%, respectively; P = .311). Morphometric analysis indicated that coracoid grafts exhibited significantly greater thickness and height than scapular spine grafts. In biomechanical results, the scapular spine group exhibited significantly greater construct stiffness than the coracoid group (206.3 ± 58.8 vs 148.3 ± 76.0 N/mm, respectively; P = .023). The average failure load in the scapular spine group was not significantly higher than that in the coracoid group. No significant differences in cyclic displacement were found between the 2 techniques. CONCLUSION: In a simulated 25% anterior glenoid bony defect, a scapular spine graft was comparable with the classic Latarjet procedure in restoring the glenoid articular dimension and exhibited superior construct stiffness in a cadaveric model. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The scapular spine may serve as an alternative graft choice in glenoid augmentation surgery considering the amount of articular restoration and initial fixation stability.
