TY - JOUR
T1 - A biomechanical comparison between transosseous cruciate sutures and suture anchors for triceps tendon repair
T2 - a systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Sequeira, Sean B.
AU - Imbergamo, Casey
AU - Gould, Heath
AU - Wright, Melissa A.
AU - Murthi, Anand M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 American Heart Association, Inc.
PY - 2022/11/30
Y1 - 2022/11/30
N2 - Background: The most common surgical option for acute triceps tendon tears is primary repair. There is no consensus as to which fixation construct is biomechanically superior. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical properties of transosseous cruciate (TC) versus suture anchors (SA) for triceps tendon repair. Methods: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane library, and Embase using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines to identify studies that analyzed the biomechanical properties of TC and SA techniques for triceps tendon repair. The search phrase implemented was "triceps tendon repair biomechanics."Evaluated outcomes included medial displacement, lateral displacement, and ultimate load to failure. Results: Four studies met inclusion criteria, including 74 cadaveric specimens (TC: 37, SA: 37), for triceps tendon repair comparing a transosseous technique with TC to SA fixation. Pooled analysis from four studies reporting on medial and lateral displacement revealed a statistically significant difference between TC and SA (P=0.048 and 0.006). Pooled analysis from three studies reporting on ultimate load to failure revealed a statistically significant difference in favor of SA compared to TC (P=0.035). Conclusions: Biomechanical testing of SA for triceps tendon repair is associated with higher ultimate load to failure and lower medial and lateral displacement when under load following repair. The findings of this biomechanical meta-analyses should be considered along with clinical outcome data when surgeons make a decision regarding triceps tendon repair techniques.
AB - Background: The most common surgical option for acute triceps tendon tears is primary repair. There is no consensus as to which fixation construct is biomechanically superior. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical properties of transosseous cruciate (TC) versus suture anchors (SA) for triceps tendon repair. Methods: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane library, and Embase using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines to identify studies that analyzed the biomechanical properties of TC and SA techniques for triceps tendon repair. The search phrase implemented was "triceps tendon repair biomechanics."Evaluated outcomes included medial displacement, lateral displacement, and ultimate load to failure. Results: Four studies met inclusion criteria, including 74 cadaveric specimens (TC: 37, SA: 37), for triceps tendon repair comparing a transosseous technique with TC to SA fixation. Pooled analysis from four studies reporting on medial and lateral displacement revealed a statistically significant difference between TC and SA (P=0.048 and 0.006). Pooled analysis from three studies reporting on ultimate load to failure revealed a statistically significant difference in favor of SA compared to TC (P=0.035). Conclusions: Biomechanical testing of SA for triceps tendon repair is associated with higher ultimate load to failure and lower medial and lateral displacement when under load following repair. The findings of this biomechanical meta-analyses should be considered along with clinical outcome data when surgeons make a decision regarding triceps tendon repair techniques.
KW - biomechanics
KW - cadaveric studies
KW - suture anchor
KW - transosseous cruciate
KW - triceps tendon repair
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85141986182&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/BCO.0000000000001162
DO - 10.1097/BCO.0000000000001162
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85141986182
SN - 1940-7041
VL - 33
SP - 538
EP - 542
JO - Current Orthopaedic Practice
JF - Current Orthopaedic Practice
IS - 6
ER -