000			03663nam a22004817a 4500
008			230721s20232023 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
022			_a2197-1153
024			_a10.1186/s40634-023-00617-9 [doi]
024			_a10.1186/s40634-023-00617-9 [pii]
024			_aPMC10219912 [pmc]
040			_aOvid MEDLINE(R)
099			_a37233834
245			_aNo difference in load to failure or stiffness between transosseous tunnels, suture anchors, and cortical buttons for pectoralis major tendon repair: a systematic review & meta-analysis.
251			_aJournal of Experimental Orthopaedics. 10(1):56, 2023 May 26.
252			_aJ. exp. orthop.. 10(1):56, 2023 May 26.
253			_aJournal of experimental orthopaedics
260			_c2023
260			_fFY2023
260			_p2023 May 26
265			_sepublish
265			_tPubMed-not-MEDLINE
266			_d2023-07-21
520			_aCONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in load to failure or stiffness when using BT, CB, or SA in pectoralis major tendon repairs. This review reveals that clinical outcomes may better inform which fixation construct to implement in pectoralis major tendon repairs.
520			_aLEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I. Copyright © 2023. The Author(s).
520			_aMETHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane library, and Embase using PRISMA guidelines to identify studies that analyzed the biomechanical properties of bone tunnels (BT), cortical buttons (CB) and suture anchors (SA) techniques for pectoralis major tendon repair. The search phrase implemented was 'pectoralis major tendon repair biomechanics'. Studies that did not evaluate biomechanical outcome data, evaluated partial pectoralis major tendon tears, and non-English articles were excluded. Evaluated outcomes included ultimate load to failure (N) and stiffness (N/mm).
520			_aPURPOSE: Surgical options for pectoralis major tendon tears include primary repair, though there is no consensus as to which constructs are biomechanically superior for repair.
520			_aRESULTS: Six studies met inclusion criteria, including a total of 124 cadaveric specimens, for pectoralis major tendon repair comparing BT with SA and CB. Pooled analysis from four studies reporting on ultimate load to failure between BT and SA failed to reveal a difference between BT and SA (p = 0.489). Pooled analysis from two studies reporting on stiffness failed to reveal a difference in favor of BT compared to SA (p = 0.705). Pooled analysis from four studies reporting on ultimate load to failure between BT and CB failed to reveal a difference between BT and CB (p = 0.567). Pooled analysis from two studies reporting on stiffness failed to reveal a difference in favor of BT compared to CB (p = 0.701).
546			_aEnglish
650			_zAutomated
651			_aMedStar Union Memorial Hospital
656			_aOrthopaedic Surgery
656			_aOrthopaedic Surgery Residency
657			_aJournal Article
700			_aImbergamo, Casey _bMUMH _cOrthopaedic Surgery Residency _dMD _eResident PGY 2
700			_aSequeira, Lynette M _bMUMH
700			_aSequeira, Sean _bMUMH _cOrthopaedic Surgery Residency _dMD _eResident PGY 2
700			_aTepper, Kenneth _bMUMH
700			_aWieland, Mark _bMUMH _cOrthopaedic Surgery Residency _dMD _eResident PGY 1
790			_aImbergamo CM, Sequeira LM, Sequeira SB, Tepper K, Wieland MD
856			_uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40634-023-00617-9 _zhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40634-023-00617-9
858			_zhttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-2564-8703 _ySequeira, Sean B _uhttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-2564-8703
942			_cART _dArticle
999			_c13031 _d13031