PurposeSurgical options for pectoralis major tendon tears include primary repair, though there is no consensus as to which constructs are biomechanically superior for repair.MethodsA 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).ResultsSix 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).ConclusionsThere 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.Level of evidenceI.