Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 9/2017

01-09-2017 | Knee

A cadaveric assessment of the risk of nerve injury during open subpectoral biceps tenodesis using a bicortical guidewire

Authors: Adnan Saithna, Alison Longo, R. W. Jordan, Jeff Leiter, Peter MacDonald, Jason Old

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 9/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the risk of neurological injury from the placement of a bicortical guidewire during subpectoral biceps tenodesis.

Methods

Ten forequarter cadaver specimens were evaluated. A bicortical guidewire was placed, and measurements to important local neurological structures were made with digital calipers at open dissection.

Results

The mean (range, SD) distances from the guidewire to the respective nerves was as follows: axillary nerve posteriorly, 15.7 mm (10–22 mm, 3.4); axillary nerve laterally, 18.7 mm (12–27 mm, 4.3); radial nerve posteriorly, 26.2 mm (16–35 mm, 7.0); radial nerve medially, 25 mm (16–33 mm, 4.4); and musculocutaneous nerve, 20.1 mm (12–26 mm, 5.2).

Conclusions

There has been some disagreement in the literature regarding the proximity of a bicortical guidewire to the axillary nerve posteriorly. The results of this study concur with reports from several other authors and demonstrate that this nerve is at risk of iatrogenic injury when using this technique. The clinical relevance of this work is to allow surgeons to better understand the proximity of the nerve to a bicortical guidewire and to highlight that this risk is avoided with a unicortical technique.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Arora AS, Singh A, Koonce RC (2013) Biomechanical evaluation of a unicortical button versus interference screw for subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Arthroscopy 29:638–644CrossRefPubMed Arora AS, Singh A, Koonce RC (2013) Biomechanical evaluation of a unicortical button versus interference screw for subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Arthroscopy 29:638–644CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Buchholz A, Martetschläger F, Siebenlist S, Sandmann GH, Hapfelmeier A, Lenich A, Millett PJ, Stöckle U, Elser F (2013) Biomechanical comparison of intramedullary cortical button fixation and interference screw technique for subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Arthroscopy 29:845–853CrossRefPubMed Buchholz A, Martetschläger F, Siebenlist S, Sandmann GH, Hapfelmeier A, Lenich A, Millett PJ, Stöckle U, Elser F (2013) Biomechanical comparison of intramedullary cortical button fixation and interference screw technique for subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Arthroscopy 29:845–853CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference DeAngelis JP, Chen A, Wexler M, Hertz B, Grimaldi Bournissaint L, Nazarian A, Ramappa AJ (2015) Biomechanical characterization of unicortical button fixation: a novel technique for proximal subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:1434–1441CrossRefPubMed DeAngelis JP, Chen A, Wexler M, Hertz B, Grimaldi Bournissaint L, Nazarian A, Ramappa AJ (2015) Biomechanical characterization of unicortical button fixation: a novel technique for proximal subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:1434–1441CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Dickens JF, Kilcoyne KG, Tintle SM, Giuliani J, Schaefer RA, Rue J-P (2012) Subpectoral biceps tenodesis: an anatomic study and evaluation of at-risk structures. Am J Sports Med 40:2337–2341CrossRefPubMed Dickens JF, Kilcoyne KG, Tintle SM, Giuliani J, Schaefer RA, Rue J-P (2012) Subpectoral biceps tenodesis: an anatomic study and evaluation of at-risk structures. Am J Sports Med 40:2337–2341CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Ding DY, Gupta A, Snir N, Wolfson T, Meislin RJ (2014) Nerve proximity during bicortical drilling for subpectoral biceps tenodesis: a cadaveric study. Arthroscopy 30:942–946CrossRefPubMed Ding DY, Gupta A, Snir N, Wolfson T, Meislin RJ (2014) Nerve proximity during bicortical drilling for subpectoral biceps tenodesis: a cadaveric study. Arthroscopy 30:942–946CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Golish SR, Caldwell PE III, Miller MD, Singanamala N, Ranawat AS, Treme G, Pearson SE, Costic R, Sekiya JK (2008) Interference screw versus suture anchor fixation for subpectoral tenodesis of the proximal biceps tendon: a cadaveric study. Arthroscopy 24:1103–1108CrossRefPubMed Golish SR, Caldwell PE III, Miller MD, Singanamala N, Ranawat AS, Treme G, Pearson SE, Costic R, Sekiya JK (2008) Interference screw versus suture anchor fixation for subpectoral tenodesis of the proximal biceps tendon: a cadaveric study. Arthroscopy 24:1103–1108CrossRefPubMed
7.
8.
go back to reference Millett PJ, Sanders B, Gobezie R, Braun S, Warner JJP (2008) Interference screw vs. suture anchor fixation for open subpectoral biceps tenodesis: does it matter? BMC Musculoskelet Disord 9:121CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Millett PJ, Sanders B, Gobezie R, Braun S, Warner JJP (2008) Interference screw vs. suture anchor fixation for open subpectoral biceps tenodesis: does it matter? BMC Musculoskelet Disord 9:121CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Moon SC, Cho NS, Rhee YG (2014) Analysis of “Hidden Lesions” of the extra-articular biceps after subpectoral biceps tenodesis: the subpectoral portion as the optimal tenodesis site. Am J Sports Med. doi:10.1177/0363546514554193 Moon SC, Cho NS, Rhee YG (2014) Analysis of “Hidden Lesions” of the extra-articular biceps after subpectoral biceps tenodesis: the subpectoral portion as the optimal tenodesis site. Am J Sports Med. doi:10.​1177/​0363546514554193​
10.
go back to reference Rhee PC, Spinner RJ, Bishop AT, Shin AY (2013) Iatrogenic brachial plexus injuries associated with open subpectoral biceps tenodesis: a report of 4 cases. Am J Sports Med 41:2048–2053CrossRefPubMed Rhee PC, Spinner RJ, Bishop AT, Shin AY (2013) Iatrogenic brachial plexus injuries associated with open subpectoral biceps tenodesis: a report of 4 cases. Am J Sports Med 41:2048–2053CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Sanders B, Lavery KP, Pennington S, Warner JJP (2012) Clinical success of biceps tenodesis with and without release of the transverse humeral ligament. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 21:66–71CrossRefPubMed Sanders B, Lavery KP, Pennington S, Warner JJP (2012) Clinical success of biceps tenodesis with and without release of the transverse humeral ligament. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 21:66–71CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Sethi PM, Rajaram A, Beitzel K, Hackett TR, Chowaniec DM, Mazzocca AD (2013) Biomechanical performance of subpectoral biceps tenodesis: a comparison of interference screw fixation, cortical button fixation, and interference screw diameter. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 22:451–457CrossRefPubMed Sethi PM, Rajaram A, Beitzel K, Hackett TR, Chowaniec DM, Mazzocca AD (2013) Biomechanical performance of subpectoral biceps tenodesis: a comparison of interference screw fixation, cortical button fixation, and interference screw diameter. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 22:451–457CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Sethi PM, Vadasdi K, Greene RT, Vitale MA, Duong M, Miller SR (2015) Safety of open suprapectoral and subpectoral biceps tenodesis: an anatomic assessment of risk for neurologic injury. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 24:138–142CrossRefPubMed Sethi PM, Vadasdi K, Greene RT, Vitale MA, Duong M, Miller SR (2015) Safety of open suprapectoral and subpectoral biceps tenodesis: an anatomic assessment of risk for neurologic injury. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 24:138–142CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A cadaveric assessment of the risk of nerve injury during open subpectoral biceps tenodesis using a bicortical guidewire
Authors
Adnan Saithna
Alison Longo
R. W. Jordan
Jeff Leiter
Peter MacDonald
Jason Old
Publication date
01-09-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Issue 9/2017
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3972-2

Other articles of this Issue 9/2017

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 9/2017 Go to the issue