J Knee Surg 2014; 27(02): 133-138
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1357495
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Biceps Tenodesis versus Allograft Reconstruction for Varus Instability

Cristobal Beiro
1   Department of Orthopaedics, MedStar Union Memorial Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Brent G. Parks
1   Department of Orthopaedics, MedStar Union Memorial Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Michael Tsai
1   Department of Orthopaedics, MedStar Union Memorial Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Richard Y. Hinton
1   Department of Orthopaedics, MedStar Union Memorial Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

21. März 2013

25. August 2013

Publikationsdatum:
11. Oktober 2013 (online)

Preview

Abstract

Although effective to restore stability in varus laxity, a fibula-based procedure such as figure-of-8 reconstruction can be technically demanding and requires use of allograft or autograft. Biceps rerouting offers an alternative without the potential complications of allograft or autograft procedures. It is not known whether biceps tenodesis is effective in addressing isolated varus laxity with lateral collateral ligament (LCL) rupture. We compared biceps tenodesis and figure-of-8 allograft reconstruction for restoration of varus stability. Nine knees were loaded at 10 N-m at 0- and 30-degree knee flexion in intact, LCL sectioned, and reconstructed state. Both biceps tenodesis and figure-of-8 reconstruction restored varus stability to at least baseline stability. Normalized displacement with biceps tenodesis measured at time zero was significantly lower than with allograft reconstruction at 0 degrees (0.75 ± 0.26 vs. 1.09 ± 0.31 degrees; p = 0.04) and 30 degrees (0.66 ± 0.14 vs. 0.91 ± 0.27 degrees; p = 0.04). Biceps tenodesis was effective at restoring baseline varus stability in isolated varus laxity.