The Rotator Cable Does Not Stress Shield the Crescent Area During Shoulder Abduction.

BACKGROUND: It is accepted by the orthopaedic community that the rotator cable (RCa) acts as a suspension bridge that stress shields the crescent area (CA). The goal of this study was to determine if the RCa does stress shield the CA during shoulder abduction. METHODS: The principal strain magnitude and direction in the RCa and CA and shoulder abduction force were measured in 20 cadaveric specimens. Ten specimens underwent a release of the anterior cable insertion followed by a posterior release. In the other 10, a release of the posterior cable insertion was followed by an anterior release. Testing was performed for the native, single-release, and full-release conditions. The thicknesses of the RCa and CA were measured. RESULTS: Neither the principal strain magnitude nor the strain direction in either the RCa or the CA changed with single or full RCa release (p ≥ 0.493). There were no changes in abduction force after single or full RCa release (p ≥ 0.180). The RCa and CA thicknesses did not differ from one another at any location (p ≥ 0.195). CONCLUSIONS: The RCa does not act as a suspension bridge and does not stress shield the CA. The CA primarily transfers shoulder abduction force to the greater tuberosity. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The CA is important in force transmission during shoulder abduction, and efforts should be made to restore its continuity with a repair or reconstruction.

Partial Distal Biceps Avulsion Results in a Significant Loss of Supination Force.

BACKGROUND: Partial avulsions of the short and/or long head of the distal biceps tendon cause pain and loss of strength. The goal of the present study was to quantify the loss of supination and flexion strength following a series of surgical releases designed to simulate partial and complete short and long head traumatic avulsions. METHODS: Mechanical testing was performed to measure supination moment arms and flexion force efficiency on 18 adult fresh-frozen specimens in pronation, neutral, and supination. The distal biceps footprint length was divided into 4 equal segments. In 9 specimens (the distal-first group), the tendon was partially cut starting distally by releasing 25%, 50%, and 75% of the insertion site. In the other 9 specimens (the proximal-first group), the releases started proximally. Mechanical testing was performed before and after each release. RESULTS: Significant decreases in the supination moment arm occurred after a 75% release in the distal-first release group; the decrease was 24% in pronation (p = 0.003) and 10% in neutral (p = 0.043). No significant differences in the supination moment arm (p ≥ 0.079) or in flexion force efficiency (p ≥ 0.058) occurred in the proximal-first group. CONCLUSIONS: A simulated complete short head avulsion significantly decreased the supination moment arm and therefore supination strength. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A mechanical case can be made for repair of partial distal biceps tendon avulsions when the rupture involves ≥75% of the distal insertion site.

The effect of tendon rotation on distal biceps repair.

BACKGROUND: The distal biceps tendon externally rotates from proximal to distal before inserting onto the radius. Our hypothesis is that an externally rotated (anatomic) repair would re-create native supination moment arm and flexion force, whereas an internally rotated (nonanatomic) repair would result in reduced force transmission. METHODS: The mechanical tests performed in this study measured isometric moment arms and elbow flexion force using a validated elbow simulator as previously published. Mechanical testing was performed on 8 native cadaveric elbows (61 ± 15 years). The distal biceps tendons in all specimens were then incised from their footprint and repaired with anatomic and nonanatomic tendon rotations. After each repair, the specimens were retested. The repair sequence was randomly assigned. RESULTS: Gross observation showed repair site bunching with the nonanatomic repairs. There was no statistical difference in the moment arms between the native, anatomic, and nonanatomic rotations for the 3 forearm angles (P ≥ .352). Analysis showed no statistical difference in flexion force ratio for the elbow at 90° (P ≥ .283). DISCUSSION: The study showed that biceps tendon rotation does not play a role in supination moment arm or flexion force. Twisting the distal biceps tendon around the tendon axis does not change the direction of its applied force on the tuberosity. Tendon bunching in nonanatomic reattachments increases repair site width, which may lead to tendon-ulnar impingement during forearm rotation.