Pectoralis major tendon repair

a biomechanical study of suture button versus transosseous suture techniques

William Thomas, Sabina Gheduzzi, Iain Packham

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)
100 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Purpose Pectoralis major tendon avulsion injury benefits from surgical repair. The technique used and speed of rehabilitation in this demanding population remains subject to debate. We performed a biomechanical study comparing suture button (Pec Button™, Arthrex, Naples, FL) with a transosseous suture technique (FibreWire, Arthrex, Naples, FL). Methods Freshly slaughtered porcine humeri were prepared to model a single transosseous suture or suture button repair. A static, tensile load to failure experiment and a cyclic, tensile load experiment to model standard (10,000 cycles) and accelerated rehabilitation (20,000 cycles) philosophies were tested. The mode of failure, yield and ultimate failure load, extension (clinical failure >10 mm) and the resistance to cyclic loading was measured. Results The mode of failure was suture fracture in all the static load experiments with 10/11 occurring as the suture passed through the button and 7/11 as the suture passed through the bone tunnels. There was a significant difference in yield load, favouring transosseous suture [p = 0.009, suture button (SB) 673.0 N (647.2-691.7 N), transosseous suture (TOS) 855.0 N (750.0-891.4 N)] and median extension, favouring suture button [p = 0.009, SB 8.8 mm (5.0-12.4 mm), TOS 15.2 mm (13.2-17.1 mm)]. 2/3 transosseous suture and 0/3 suture buttons failed before completing 20,000 cycles. The difference in mean number of cycles completed was non-significant. The difference in mean extension was 5.1 mm (SB 6.7 mm, TOS 11.7 mm). Conclusions Both techniques show advantages. The difference in extension is likely to be more clinically relevant than load tolerated at failure, which is well above physiological levels. The findings do not support an accelerated rehabilitation model.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2617-2623
Number of pages7
JournalKnee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
Volume23
Issue number9
Early online date4 May 2014
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2015

Fingerprint

Suture Techniques
Tendons
Sutures
Rehabilitation
Tendon Injuries
Humerus

Cite this

@article{07984e8f4b0348dab5fc16ebf5b81330,
title = "Pectoralis major tendon repair: a biomechanical study of suture button versus transosseous suture techniques",
abstract = "Purpose Pectoralis major tendon avulsion injury benefits from surgical repair. The technique used and speed of rehabilitation in this demanding population remains subject to debate. We performed a biomechanical study comparing suture button (Pec Button™, Arthrex, Naples, FL) with a transosseous suture technique (FibreWire, Arthrex, Naples, FL). Methods Freshly slaughtered porcine humeri were prepared to model a single transosseous suture or suture button repair. A static, tensile load to failure experiment and a cyclic, tensile load experiment to model standard (10,000 cycles) and accelerated rehabilitation (20,000 cycles) philosophies were tested. The mode of failure, yield and ultimate failure load, extension (clinical failure >10 mm) and the resistance to cyclic loading was measured. Results The mode of failure was suture fracture in all the static load experiments with 10/11 occurring as the suture passed through the button and 7/11 as the suture passed through the bone tunnels. There was a significant difference in yield load, favouring transosseous suture [p = 0.009, suture button (SB) 673.0 N (647.2-691.7 N), transosseous suture (TOS) 855.0 N (750.0-891.4 N)] and median extension, favouring suture button [p = 0.009, SB 8.8 mm (5.0-12.4 mm), TOS 15.2 mm (13.2-17.1 mm)]. 2/3 transosseous suture and 0/3 suture buttons failed before completing 20,000 cycles. The difference in mean number of cycles completed was non-significant. The difference in mean extension was 5.1 mm (SB 6.7 mm, TOS 11.7 mm). Conclusions Both techniques show advantages. The difference in extension is likely to be more clinically relevant than load tolerated at failure, which is well above physiological levels. The findings do not support an accelerated rehabilitation model.",
author = "William Thomas and Sabina Gheduzzi and Iain Packham",
year = "2015",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1007/s00167-014-3008-3",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "2617--2623",
journal = "Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy",
issn = "0942-2056",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Pectoralis major tendon repair

T2 - a biomechanical study of suture button versus transosseous suture techniques

AU - Thomas, William

AU - Gheduzzi, Sabina

AU - Packham, Iain

PY - 2015/9

Y1 - 2015/9

N2 - Purpose Pectoralis major tendon avulsion injury benefits from surgical repair. The technique used and speed of rehabilitation in this demanding population remains subject to debate. We performed a biomechanical study comparing suture button (Pec Button™, Arthrex, Naples, FL) with a transosseous suture technique (FibreWire, Arthrex, Naples, FL). Methods Freshly slaughtered porcine humeri were prepared to model a single transosseous suture or suture button repair. A static, tensile load to failure experiment and a cyclic, tensile load experiment to model standard (10,000 cycles) and accelerated rehabilitation (20,000 cycles) philosophies were tested. The mode of failure, yield and ultimate failure load, extension (clinical failure >10 mm) and the resistance to cyclic loading was measured. Results The mode of failure was suture fracture in all the static load experiments with 10/11 occurring as the suture passed through the button and 7/11 as the suture passed through the bone tunnels. There was a significant difference in yield load, favouring transosseous suture [p = 0.009, suture button (SB) 673.0 N (647.2-691.7 N), transosseous suture (TOS) 855.0 N (750.0-891.4 N)] and median extension, favouring suture button [p = 0.009, SB 8.8 mm (5.0-12.4 mm), TOS 15.2 mm (13.2-17.1 mm)]. 2/3 transosseous suture and 0/3 suture buttons failed before completing 20,000 cycles. The difference in mean number of cycles completed was non-significant. The difference in mean extension was 5.1 mm (SB 6.7 mm, TOS 11.7 mm). Conclusions Both techniques show advantages. The difference in extension is likely to be more clinically relevant than load tolerated at failure, which is well above physiological levels. The findings do not support an accelerated rehabilitation model.

AB - Purpose Pectoralis major tendon avulsion injury benefits from surgical repair. The technique used and speed of rehabilitation in this demanding population remains subject to debate. We performed a biomechanical study comparing suture button (Pec Button™, Arthrex, Naples, FL) with a transosseous suture technique (FibreWire, Arthrex, Naples, FL). Methods Freshly slaughtered porcine humeri were prepared to model a single transosseous suture or suture button repair. A static, tensile load to failure experiment and a cyclic, tensile load experiment to model standard (10,000 cycles) and accelerated rehabilitation (20,000 cycles) philosophies were tested. The mode of failure, yield and ultimate failure load, extension (clinical failure >10 mm) and the resistance to cyclic loading was measured. Results The mode of failure was suture fracture in all the static load experiments with 10/11 occurring as the suture passed through the button and 7/11 as the suture passed through the bone tunnels. There was a significant difference in yield load, favouring transosseous suture [p = 0.009, suture button (SB) 673.0 N (647.2-691.7 N), transosseous suture (TOS) 855.0 N (750.0-891.4 N)] and median extension, favouring suture button [p = 0.009, SB 8.8 mm (5.0-12.4 mm), TOS 15.2 mm (13.2-17.1 mm)]. 2/3 transosseous suture and 0/3 suture buttons failed before completing 20,000 cycles. The difference in mean number of cycles completed was non-significant. The difference in mean extension was 5.1 mm (SB 6.7 mm, TOS 11.7 mm). Conclusions Both techniques show advantages. The difference in extension is likely to be more clinically relevant than load tolerated at failure, which is well above physiological levels. The findings do not support an accelerated rehabilitation model.

UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3008-3

U2 - 10.1007/s00167-014-3008-3

DO - 10.1007/s00167-014-3008-3

M3 - Article

VL - 23

SP - 2617

EP - 2623

JO - Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

JF - Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

SN - 0942-2056

IS - 9

ER -