Biomechanical Analysis of Distal Biceps Tendon Repair Methods
Background: The 1-incision and 2-incision techniques are commonly used methods to repair a distal biceps rupture, and they differ in the location of reinsertion of tendon into bone. Hypothesis: The native distal biceps brachii tendon inserts on the posterior-ulnar aspect of the bicipital tuberosity,...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The American journal of sports medicine 2007-11, Vol.35 (11), p.1950-1954 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Background: The 1-incision and 2-incision techniques are commonly used methods to repair a distal biceps rupture, and they differ in
the location of reinsertion of tendon into bone.
Hypothesis: The native distal biceps brachii tendon inserts on the posterior-ulnar aspect of the bicipital tuberosity, which functions
as a cam, increasing the tendonâs moment arm during its principal action of forearm supination. Repair of the distal biceps
tendon to the anterior aspect of the tuberosity compromises forearm supination due to absence of the bicipital tuberosityâs
cam effect.
Study Design: Controlled laboratory study.
Methods: Eleven matched pairs of fresh-frozen cadaveric upper extremities were prepared for repair of the distal biceps tendon using
either anterior or posterior reattachment with transosseous suture fixation. Specimens were tested on a materials testing
machine with intact distal biceps insertion and after repair. A load cell at the distal radial-ulnar joint measured resultant
elbow flexion and forearm supination torque produced by 100-N force applied to the proximal aspect of the tendon.
Results: Although there was a trend ( P = .104) toward loss of supination torque with the anterior reconstruction method, no significant differences in torque (0.80
vs 0.89 N·m) or flexion force (11.87 vs 12.07 N) were found between the anterior and posterior reconstruction techniques.
Conclusion: There is no statistically significant difference in flexion force or supination torque between the anterior and posterior
reconstruction techniques.
Clinical Relevance: This study supports existing limited clinical data suggesting no functional differences exist between 2 common repair methods.
Further biomechanical and clinical investigations directly comparing the results of distal biceps tendon repairs made to the
anterior aspect versus the posterior aspect of the tuberosity are necessary to definitely determine if differences exist in
resultant elbow flexion and forearm supination functions.
Keywords:
tendon injuries
elbow
surgical procedures
rupture
suture techniques |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0363-5465 1552-3365 |
DOI: | 10.1177/0363546507305009 |