Distal Biceps Tendon Repair With Interlinked Knotless All-Suture Anchors Provides Greater Footprint Optimization and Higher Fixation Security Over Intramedullary Cortical Button Repair: A Biomechanical Study
Jim C. Hsu, Genevieve M. Fraipont, Michelle H. McGarry, Victor T. Hung, Jonathan M. Salandra, Gregory J. Adamson, Thay Q. Lee
{"title":"Distal Biceps Tendon Repair With Interlinked Knotless All-Suture Anchors Provides Greater Footprint Optimization and Higher Fixation Security Over Intramedullary Cortical Button Repair: A Biomechanical Study","authors":"Jim C. Hsu, Genevieve M. Fraipont, Michelle H. McGarry, Victor T. Hung, Jonathan M. Salandra, Gregory J. Adamson, Thay Q. Lee","doi":"10.1177/03635465251365498","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Recent biomechanical investigations of distal biceps tendon repair (DBTR) constructs have typically evaluated time-zero fixation security, while tendon-bone repair footprint characterization has been limited. Consequently, interactions between repair construct design, fixation security, and repair footprint parameters remain minimally assessed. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to compare time-zero fixation security and repair footprint parameters between a new DBTR construct with 2 interlinked knotless all-suture anchors and an established DBTR construct with an intramedullary cortical button. It was hypothesized that the new interlinked twin-anchor repair technique would demonstrate greater time-zero fixation security and footprint optimization. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 20 cadaveric elbows in 2 matched groups underwent DBTR with either (1) twin interlinked knotless all-suture anchors or (2) a single intramedullary cortical button. Anatomic and repair footprints were digitally captured with a 3-dimensional coordinate-measuring machine. The repair constructs underwent cyclic loading and then were loaded to failure. Anatomic and repair footprint areas and their overlap, tendon-bone interface and total construct displacement, ultimate failure load, and failure mode were recorded. Anatomic footprint restoration and repair footprint accuracy were calculated. Results: The interlinked knotless twin-anchor repair construct demonstrated a larger repair footprint area (55.1 ± 14.9 vs 35.2 ± 19.8 mm <jats:sup>2</jats:sup> , respectively; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .032), greater anatomic footprint restoration (42.7% ± 12.9% vs 20.2% ± 9.4%, respectively; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .003), lower tendon-bone interface displacement (3.2 ± 1.2 vs 12.4 ± 6.6 mm, respectively; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .003), lower total construct displacement (5.5 ± 1.7 vs 13.9 ± 8.1 mm, respectively; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .015), and higher ultimate failure load (468.3 ± 124.2 vs 313.2 ± 103.4 N, respectively; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .001) compared with the single-button repair construct. The most common failure mode was knot slippage/suture breakage (60%) in the single-button group and suture-tendon interface failure (50%) in the twin-anchor group. Conclusion: While this cadaveric study did not account for the effects of tendon-bone healing, the novel interlinked twin-anchor DBTR construct demonstrated greater time-zero fixation security, a larger repair footprint, and greater anatomic footprint restoration over the established single-button repair construct. Clinical Relevance: A DBTR construct with twin interlinked knotless all-suture anchors offers multiple features, including time-zero fixation security and footprint optimization, that may potentially improve clinical outcomes.","PeriodicalId":517411,"journal":{"name":"The American Journal of Sports Medicine","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Journal of Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465251365498","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Recent biomechanical investigations of distal biceps tendon repair (DBTR) constructs have typically evaluated time-zero fixation security, while tendon-bone repair footprint characterization has been limited. Consequently, interactions between repair construct design, fixation security, and repair footprint parameters remain minimally assessed. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to compare time-zero fixation security and repair footprint parameters between a new DBTR construct with 2 interlinked knotless all-suture anchors and an established DBTR construct with an intramedullary cortical button. It was hypothesized that the new interlinked twin-anchor repair technique would demonstrate greater time-zero fixation security and footprint optimization. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 20 cadaveric elbows in 2 matched groups underwent DBTR with either (1) twin interlinked knotless all-suture anchors or (2) a single intramedullary cortical button. Anatomic and repair footprints were digitally captured with a 3-dimensional coordinate-measuring machine. The repair constructs underwent cyclic loading and then were loaded to failure. Anatomic and repair footprint areas and their overlap, tendon-bone interface and total construct displacement, ultimate failure load, and failure mode were recorded. Anatomic footprint restoration and repair footprint accuracy were calculated. Results: The interlinked knotless twin-anchor repair construct demonstrated a larger repair footprint area (55.1 ± 14.9 vs 35.2 ± 19.8 mm 2 , respectively; P = .032), greater anatomic footprint restoration (42.7% ± 12.9% vs 20.2% ± 9.4%, respectively; P = .003), lower tendon-bone interface displacement (3.2 ± 1.2 vs 12.4 ± 6.6 mm, respectively; P = .003), lower total construct displacement (5.5 ± 1.7 vs 13.9 ± 8.1 mm, respectively; P = .015), and higher ultimate failure load (468.3 ± 124.2 vs 313.2 ± 103.4 N, respectively; P = .001) compared with the single-button repair construct. The most common failure mode was knot slippage/suture breakage (60%) in the single-button group and suture-tendon interface failure (50%) in the twin-anchor group. Conclusion: While this cadaveric study did not account for the effects of tendon-bone healing, the novel interlinked twin-anchor DBTR construct demonstrated greater time-zero fixation security, a larger repair footprint, and greater anatomic footprint restoration over the established single-button repair construct. Clinical Relevance: A DBTR construct with twin interlinked knotless all-suture anchors offers multiple features, including time-zero fixation security and footprint optimization, that may potentially improve clinical outcomes.
背景:最近对远端肱二头肌肌腱修复(DBTR)结构的生物力学研究通常评估了零时间固定安全性,而肌腱-骨修复足迹表征有限。因此,修复结构设计、固定安全性和修复足迹参数之间的相互作用仍然是最低限度的评估。目的/假设:目的是比较具有2个相互连接的无结全缝合锚钉的新型DBTR结构和具有髓内皮质按钮的已建立DBTR结构之间的零时间固定安全性和修复足迹参数。假设新的互连双锚修复技术将具有更高的零时间固定安全性和占地优化。研究设计:实验室对照研究。方法:2组共20例尸体肘关节行DBTR(1)双连接无结全缝合锚钉或(2)单髓内皮质钮扣。解剖和修复足迹是用三维坐标测量机数字捕获的。修复结构经过循环加载,然后加载至失效。记录解剖和修复足迹区域及其重叠,肌腱-骨界面和总结构位移,最终破坏载荷和破坏模式。计算解剖脚印恢复和修复脚印的精度。结果:互联无结双锚修复体的修复足迹面积更大(分别为55.1±14.9 vs 35.2±19.8 mm 2, P = 0.032),解剖足迹恢复更大(分别为42.7%±12.9% vs 20.2%±9.4%,P = 0.003),下肌腱-骨界面位移(分别为3.2±1.2 vs 12.4±6.6 mm, P = 0.003),总结构位移更小(分别为5.5±1.7 vs 13.9±8.1 mm);P = 0.015),与单按钮修复结构相比,更高的极限故障负荷(分别为468.3±124.2 N vs 313.2±103.4 N; P = 0.001)。单扣组最常见的失效模式为结滑移/缝线断裂(60%),双锚组最常见的失效模式为缝线-肌腱界面失效(50%)。结论:虽然这项尸体研究没有考虑到肌腱-骨愈合的影响,但与现有的单按钮修复结构相比,新型互连双锚DBTR结构具有更高的零时间固定安全性,更大的修复足迹和更大的解剖足迹恢复。临床意义:双连接无结全缝合锚钉的DBTR结构具有多种特性,包括零时间固定安全性和占地面积优化,可能会改善临床结果。