Biomechanical comparison of tension band suture fixation and tension band wiring in olecranon fractures

PURPOSE: Traditional tension band wire fixation (TBWF) of olecranon fractures is associated with high revision rates due to implant-related complications. The purpose of the study was to compare the strength of fixation in olecranon fractures between TBWF and an all-suture based technique.

METHODS: A transverse fracture was created in 20 paired fresh-frozen human cadaveric elbows. Fractures were randomly (alternating right-left) assigned for fixation with either tension band suture fixation (TBSF) or TBWF. The elbow was fixed in 90° of flexion and underwent cycling loading by pulling the triceps tendon to 300 N for 200 cycles. Fracture displacement was optically recorded using digital image correlation (DIC). Finally, load-to-failure was assessed by a monotonic pull to 1000 N and failure mechanism was recorded.

RESULTS: Two specimens in the TBSF group were excluded from the cycling loading analysis due to technical difficulties with the DIC. After cyclic loading, median (min-max) fracture displacement was 0.28 mm (0.10-0.44) in the TBSF group and 0.18 mm (0.00-1.48) in the TBWF group (p = 0.315). No difference was found between the two groups in the repeated measures analysis of variance (p = 0.329). In the load-to-failure test, 6/10 specimens failed in the TBSF group (median load-to-failure 791 N) vs. 8/10 in the TBWF group (median load-to-failure 747 N). The TBSF constructs failed due to fracture of the dorsal cortex, suture breakage or triceps failure. The TBWF constructs failed due to breakage of the wire.

CONCLUSION: There was no difference in fixation strength between the TBWF and TBSF constructs. Our findings suggest TBSF to be a feasible alternative to TBWF and we hypothesize that a non-metallic implant may have fewer implant-related complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Basic science study.