The biomechanical performance of a new forked knotless biceps tenodesis compared to a knotless and suture anchor tenodesis.

PURPOSE: Biomechanical comparison of three different fixation techniques for a proximal biceps tenodesis. METHODS: Eighteen human cadaver specimens were used for the testing. A tenodesis of the proximal biceps tendon was performed using a double-loaded suture anchor (5.5-mm Corkscrew, Arthrex), a knotless anchor (5.5-mm SwiveLock, Arthrex) or a forked knotless anchor (8-mm SwiveLock, Arthrex). Reconstructions were cyclically loaded for 50 cycles from 10-60 to 10-100 N. Cyclic displacement and ultimate failure loads were determined, and mode of failure was evaluated. RESULTS: Cyclic displacement at 60 N revealed a mean of 3.3 ± 1.1 mm for the Corkscrew, 5.4 ± 1.4 mm for the 5.5-mm SwiveLock and 2.9 ± 1.6 mm for the 8-mm forked SwiveLock. At 100 N, 5.1 ± 2.2 mm were seen for the Corkscrew anchor, 8.7 ± 2.5 mm for the 5.5-mm SwiveLock and 4.8 ± 3.3 mm for the 8-mm forked SwiveLock anchor. Significant lower cyclic displacement was seen for the Corkscrew anchor (p < 0.020) as well as the 8-mm SwiveLock anchor (p < 0.023) compared to the 5.5-mm SwiveLock anchor at 60 N. An ultimate load to failure of 109 ± 27 N was found for the Corkscrew anchor, 125 ± 25 N were measured for the 5.5-mm SwiveLock anchor, and 175 ± 42 N were found for the 8-mm forked SwiveLock anchor. Significant differences were seen between the 8-mm SwiveLock compared to the 5.5-mm SwiveLock (p < 0.044) as well as the Corkscrew anchor (p < 0.009). No significant differences were seen between the Corkscrew and the 5.5-mm SwiveLock anchor. CONCLUSIONS: The new 8-mm forked SwiveLock anchor significantly enhances construct stability compared to a 5.5-mm double-loaded Corkscrew anchor as well as the 5.5-mm SwiveLock suture anchor. However, a restrictive postoperative rehabilitation seems to be important in all tested reconstructions in order to avoid early failure of the construct.