{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,3,15]],"date-time":"2026-03-15T09:19:36Z","timestamp":1773566376319,"version":"3.50.1"},"reference-count":22,"publisher":"Wiley","issue":"5","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2024,6,22]],"date-time":"2024-06-22T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1719014400000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc-nd\/4.0\/"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2024,6,22]],"date-time":"2024-06-22T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1719014400000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/doi.wiley.com\/10.1002\/tdm_license_1.1"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2024,6,22]],"date-time":"2024-06-22T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1719014400000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.elsevier.com\/tdm\/userlicense\/1.0\/"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2024,6,22]],"date-time":"2024-06-22T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1719014400000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.elsevier.com\/legal\/tdmrep-license"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2024,6,15]],"date-time":"2024-06-15T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1718409600000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc-nd\/4.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["arthroscopysportsmedicineandrehabilitation.org","elsevier.com","sciencedirect.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabil."],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2024,10]]},"abstract":"<jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Purpose<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>To assess the biomechanical performance of 2 simplified loop\u2010and\u2010tack biceps tenodesis techniques, all\u2010suture anchor and all\u2010suture anchor with a button, compared with the interference screw technique in an ovine model.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Twenty\u2010one biceps tenodesis procedures were executed on the humeri and flexor digitorum profundus tendons of skeletally mature, female sheep. Limbs were evenly randomized into 2 experimental groups (all\u2010suture anchor with or without button) and 1 control group (interference screw). Cyclic loading followed by a load\u2010to\u2010failure test was conducted. The primary outcome metric was end\u2010cycle stiffness, or stiffness measured at the end of cyclic loading, because it modeled the resistance of the construct to the lower\u2010force activities of postoperative physical therapy. Secondary metrics included ultimate failure load (UFL), yield load, creep, and load\u2010to\u2010failure stiffness. End\u2010cycle stiffness difference\u2010of\u2010means testing was conducted with a minimal clinically important difference threshold of \u201315 N\/mm (\u20131.5 kg\/mm). Groups were compared using analysis of variance for all recorded variables.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      Both the all\u2010suture anchor techniques, without a button and with a button, were found to be noninferior in end\u2010cycle stiffness to the interference screw technique (\u20135.2 N\/mm [95% confidence interval, \u201313.6 to 3.3 N\/mm] and \u20133.8 N\/mm [95% confidence interval, \u201312.5 to \u20134.9 N\/mm], respectively) with a minimal clinically important difference of \u201315 N\/mm. The all\u2010suture techniques showed significantly lower UFL, lower yield load, greater creep, and lower load\u2010to\u2010failure stiffness (\n                      <jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic>\n                      &lt; .001,\n                      <jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic>\n                      &lt; .001,\n                      <jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u00a0= .002, and\n                      <jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic>\n                      &lt; .001, respectively). Tendon dimensions did not vary significantly across groups.\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusions<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Under subfailure loading conditions, the all\u2010suture anchor techniques with a button and without a button showed end\u2010cycle stiffness noninferiority to an interference screw technique; however, these techniques were inferior in all secondary outcomes, including significantly lower UFL, lower yield load, greater creep, and lower load\u2010to\u2010failure stiffness.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Clinical Relevance<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>The all\u2010suture anchor approaches with a button and without a button may retain the natural length\u2010tension dynamics of the long head of the biceps tendon because fixation can occur before the release of the tendon origin. Additionally, they may offer a simpler and more cost\u2010effective alternative to prevailing arthroscopic methods.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1016\/j.asmr.2024.100960","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2024,6,22]],"date-time":"2024-06-22T12:34:48Z","timestamp":1719059688000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/elsevier_cm_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":2,"title":["All\u2010Suture Anchor Techniques for Biceps Tenodesis Are Noninferior in End\u2010Cycle Stiffness to an Interference Screw Technique; However, Secondary Outcomes, Such as Ultimate Failure Load, Yield Load, Creep, and Load\u2010to\u2010Failure Stiffness, Are Inferior in an Ovine Model"],"prefix":"10.1002","volume":"6","author":[{"given":"Kendal","family":"Carter","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine Roanoke Virginia U.S.A."}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Emily","family":"Rogers","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Biomechanical Engineering and Mechanics Virginia Tech Blacksburg Virginia U.S.A."}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Nicholas J.","family":"Peterman","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Musculoskeletal Education and Research Center Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Carilion Clinic Roanoke Virginia U.S.A."}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Vincent","family":"Wang","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Biomechanical Engineering and Mechanics Virginia Tech Blacksburg Virginia U.S.A."}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"John R.","family":"Tuttle","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine Roanoke Virginia U.S.A."},{"name":"Musculoskeletal Education and Research Center Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Carilion Clinic Roanoke Virginia U.S.A."}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"311","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2024,6,22]]},"reference":[{"key":"e_1_2_4_2_2","first-page":"e22","article-title":"Onlay versus inlay biceps tenodesis for long head of biceps tendinopathy: A systematic review and meta\u2010analysis","volume":"6","author":"Jackson G.R.","year":"2022","journal-title":"J\u00a0Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev"},{"key":"e_1_2_4_3_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1177\/0363546510390777"},{"key":"e_1_2_4_4_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.arthro.2005.03.020"},{"key":"e_1_2_4_5_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.clinbiomech.2015.07.009"},{"key":"e_1_2_4_6_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1177\/0363546520952357"},{"key":"e_1_2_4_7_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.csm.2015.08.011"},{"key":"e_1_2_4_8_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.arthro.2014.10.012"},{"key":"e_1_2_4_9_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/JSA.0000000000000206"},{"key":"e_1_2_4_10_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1177\/0363546510388158"},{"key":"e_1_2_4_11_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.arthro.2020.05.055"},{"key":"e_1_2_4_12_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1177\/0363546519876107"},{"key":"e_1_2_4_13_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jhsa.2008.09.015"},{"key":"e_1_2_4_14_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s00167-010-1180-7"},{"key":"e_1_2_4_15_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1142\/S0218957706001856"},{"key":"e_1_2_4_16_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jse.2003.12.001"},{"key":"e_1_2_4_17_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jse.2008.03.001"},{"key":"e_1_2_4_18_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.arthro.2013.08.033"},{"key":"e_1_2_4_19_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.arthro.2010.07.004"},{"key":"e_1_2_4_20_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.arthro.2021.03.085"},{"key":"e_1_2_4_21_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.arthro.2021.06.009"},{"key":"e_1_2_4_22_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.3928\/01477447-20200107-03"},{"key":"e_1_2_4_23_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s00264-006-0297-2"}],"container-title":["Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/api.elsevier.com\/content\/article\/PII:S2666061X24000877?httpAccept=text\/xml","content-type":"text\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/api.elsevier.com\/content\/article\/PII:S2666061X24000877?httpAccept=text\/plain","content-type":"text\/plain","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/arthroscopyjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1016\/j.asmr.2024.100960","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/arthroscopyjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/full-xml\/10.1016\/j.asmr.2024.100960","content-type":"application\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/arthroscopyjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1016\/j.asmr.2024.100960","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,3,15]],"date-time":"2026-03-15T08:46:53Z","timestamp":1773564413000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/arthroscopyjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/10.1016\/j.asmr.2024.100960"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2024,6,22]]},"references-count":22,"journal-issue":{"issue":"5","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2024,10]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1016\/j.asmr.2024.100960"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.asmr.2024.100960","archive":["Portico"],"relation":{},"ISSN":["2666-061X","2666-061X"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2666-061X","type":"print"},{"value":"2666-061X","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2024,6,22]]},"assertion":[{"value":"Elsevier","name":"publisher","label":"This article is maintained by"},{"value":"All-Suture Anchor Techniques for Biceps Tenodesis Are Noninferior in End-Cycle Stiffness to an Interference Screw Technique; However, Secondary Outcomes, Such as Ultimate Failure Load, Yield Load, Creep, and Load-to-Failure Stiffness, Are Inferior in an Ovine Model","name":"articletitle","label":"Article Title"},{"value":"Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation","name":"journaltitle","label":"Journal Title"},{"value":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.asmr.2024.100960","name":"articlelink","label":"CrossRef DOI link to publisher maintained version"},{"value":"article","name":"content_type","label":"Content Type"},{"value":"\u00a9 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the Arthroscopy Association of North America.","name":"copyright","label":"Copyright"}],"article-number":"100960"}}