These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A new all-suture tension band tape fixation technique for simple olecranon fractures versus conventional tension band wire fixation: a comparative biomechanics study.
    Author: Ernstbrunner L, Rupasinghe HS, Almond M, Jo OI, Zbeda RM, Oppy A, Treseder T, Pullen C, Ek ET, Ackland DC.
    Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg; 2022 Jul; 31(7):1376-1384. PubMed ID: 35167913.
    Abstract:
    HYPOTHESIS: Simple transverse or short oblique olecranon fractures without articular comminution are classified as Mayo type IIA fractures and are typically treated with a tension band wire construct. Because of the high reoperation rates, frequently because of prominent hardware, all-suture tension band constructs have been introduced. It was the purpose to compare the biomechanical performance of conventional tension band wire fixation with a new all-suture tension band tape fixation for simple olecranon fractures. METHODS: Mayo type IIA olecranon fractures were created in 20 cadaveric elbows from 10 donors. One elbow of each donor was randomly assigned to the tension band wire technique (group TBW) or tension band tape (Arthrex, 1.3-mm SutureTape) technique (group TBT). Both groups were cyclically loaded with 500 N over 500 cycles, after which a uniaxial displacement was performed to evaluate load to failure. Data were analyzed for gap formation after cyclic loading, construct stiffness, and ultimate load to failure, where failure was defined as fracture gap formation greater than 4.0 mm. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in gap formation after 500 cycles between the TBW (1.8 mm ± 1.3 mm) and the TBT (1.9 mm ± 1.1 mm) groups (P = .854). The TBT showed a tendency toward greater construct stiffness compared with the TBW construct (mean difference: 142 N/mm; P = .053). Ultimate load to failure was not significantly different comparing both groups (TBW: 1138 N ± 286 N vs. TBT: 1126 N ± 272 N; P = .928). In both groups, all repairs failed because of >4.0-mm gap formation at the fracture site and none because of tension band construct breakage. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that the TBT technique produces equivalent or superior biomechanical performance to the TBW for simple olecranon fractures. The TBT approach reduces the risk of hardware prominence and as a result mitigates against the need for hardware removal. The TBT technique offers a clinically viable alternative to TBW.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]