Interference screw vs. suture anchor fixation for open subpectoral biceps tenodesis: does it matter?
BACKGROUND
Bioabsorbable interference screw fixation has superior biomechanical properties compared to suture anchor fixation for biceps tenodesis. However, it is unknown whether fixation technique influences clinical results.


OBJECTIVE
We hypothesize that subpectoral interference screw fixation offers relevant clinical advantages over suture anchor fixation for biceps tenodesis.


METHODS
Case Series.


METHODS
We performed a retrospective review of a consecutive series of 88 patients receiving open subpectoral biceps tenodesis with either interference screw fixation (34 patients) or suture anchor fixation (54 patients). Average follow up was 13 months. Outcomes included Visual Analogue Pain Scale (0-10), ASES score, modified Constant score, pain at the tenodesis site, failure of fixation, cosmesis, deformity (popeye) and complications.


RESULTS
There were no failures of fixation in this study. All patients showed significant improvement between their preoperative and postoperative status with regard to pain, ASES score, and abbreviated modified Constant scores. When comparing IF screw versus anchor outcomes, there was no statistical significance difference for VAS (p = 0.4), ASES score (p = 0.2), and modified Constant score (P = 0.09). One patient (3%) treated with IF screw complained of persistent bicipital groove tenderness, versus four patients (7%) in the SA group (nonsignificant).


CONCLUSIONS
Subpectoral biceps tenodesis reliably relieves pain and improves function. There was no statistically significant difference in the outcomes studied between the two fixation techniques. Residual pain at the site of tenodesis may be an issue when suture anchors are used in the subpectoral location.
Millett
Peter J
PJ
Steadman Hawkins Clinic & Steadman Hawkins Research Foundation, 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 1000, Vail, CO, USA. drmillett@steadman-hawkins.com
Sanders
Brett
B
Gobezie
Reuben
R
Braun
Sepp
S
Warner
Jon J P
JJ
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D001132:Arm / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000601:surgery*; D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena; D001863:Bone Screws / Q000009:adverse effects; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D016268:Internal Fixators / Q000009:adverse effects; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D018482:Muscle, Skeletal / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000601:surgery*; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012782:Shoulder / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000601:surgery*; D020069:Shoulder Pain / Q000209:etiology / Q000601:surgery; D053441:Suture Anchors / Q000009:adverse effects; D053656:Tenodesis / Q000379:methods*; D016896:Treatment Outcome
Arthroscopy. 2004 Apr;20(4):444-6
15067289
Arthroscopy. 2004 Feb;20(2):206-13
14760357
Am J Sports Med. 2005 Feb;33(2):208-13
15701606
Arthroscopy. 2005 Jul;21(7):896
16012508
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1975 Oct;(112):245-9
1192640
Arthroscopy. 2005 Feb;21(2):182-5
15689867
Arthroscopy. 2000 Jan-Feb;16(1):91-5
10627352
Arthroscopy. 2005 Aug;21(8):992-8
16084298
Arthroscopy. 2005 Jul;21(7):861-6
16012500
Arthroscopy. 2002 Nov-Dec;18(9):1040-5
12426550
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982 Apr;(164):165-71
7067280
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982 Mar;(163):107-12
7067240
Arthroscopy. 2002 Nov-Dec;18(9):1002-12
12426544
Arthroscopy. 2005 Jun;21(6):764
15944642
Instr Course Lect. 1985;34:204-9
3833941
Am J Sports Med. 2003 Sep-Oct;31(5):643-7
12975180
Arthroscopy. 2003 Dec;19(10):1137-41
14673458
Acta Orthop Scand. 2004 Feb;75(1):114-6
15022820
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000 Feb;(371):216-27
10693569
Arthroscopy. 2000 Jul-Aug;16(5):550-2
10882454
Arthroscopy. 2004 Jan;20(1):85-95
14716285
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1999 May-Jun;8(3):231-7
10389078
Am J Sports Med. 2006 Jan;34(1):136-44
16397097
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989 Mar;71(3):376-81
2647750
Arthroscopy. 2005 Nov;21(11):1296-306
16325079