Biomechanical Evaluation of 2 Arthroscopic Biceps Tenodeses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recently, there is increasing interest in different arthroscopic biceps tenodesis techniques. However, little data have been published about the biomechanical properties of soft tissue tenodesis. PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to evaluate the biomechanical properties of 2 different arthroscopic biceps tenodeses: the percutaneous intra-articular transtendon (PITT) technique and the suture-anchor technique. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Fifteen fresh-frozen cadaveric specimens were randomly allocated to the 2 different biceps tenodesis techniques. The humerus with biceps tenodesis was mounted on a materials testing machine to perform a load to failure test. The structural properties including ultimate load (N) and stiffness (N/mm) were derived from the load-displacement curve. The mode of failure was also recorded. Ultimate load and stiffness were compared with the parametric Student t test. RESULTS: Both repairs showed typical load-displacement curves followed by a constant increase in load and displacement until failure occurred. Suture-anchor and PITT techniques had ultimate loads of 175.4 +/- 40.4 N and 142.7 +/- 30.9 N (P = .10) and stiffness of 15.9 +/- 8.4 N/mm and 13.3 +/- 3 N/mm (P = .36), respectively, with no significant differences between them. All of the surgical constructs failed in the tendon site by pulling out with the sutures through the substance of the tendon. CONCLUSION: The suture-anchor and PITT techniques exhibited satisfactory initial strength with no statistical difference between the 2 groups. These findings, along with the consistent pullout of the suture through the tendon during failure, suggest that the most important factor for initial strength is not the attachment site but the quality of the biceps tendon. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The quality of the tendon should be taken into account when deciding the surgical technique and the rehabilitation program. The PITT technique has the benefit of avoiding hardware complications and cost.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".