Surgical indications for long head biceps tenodesis: a systematic review

Repair of Isolated Subscapularis Tears With Concurrent Biceps Tenodesis Using a Single Anchor Results in Satisfactory Clinical Outcomes: Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up

PURPOSE

To investigate the clinical outcomes of patients treated with isolated subscapularis tear repair and biceps tenodesis using a single anchor.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with subscapularis tear and who underwent arthroscopic surgery by a single surgeon between February 2017 and January 2022 were evaluated retrospectively. Inclusion criteria were patients who underwent repair of isolated subscapularis tear along with tenodesis for long head of the biceps tendon pathologies such as SLAP lesion, instability, partial tear, or tenosynovitis, with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. Assessment included active and passive range of motion, single-assessment numeric evaluation (SANE), visual analog scale (VAS), Constant-Murley score (CMS), and specific subscapularis and biceps tests. Improvements were analyzed using minimum clinically important difference (MCID) values.

RESULTS

A total of 20 patients were included. The mean age was 48.5 ± 7 years, and the follow-up period was 43.1 ± 12.7 months. Significant improvements were observed at the final follow-up in active forward flexion, active abduction, active internal rotation, as well as VAS, SANE, and CMS (P < .001). The MCID analysis showed that 100% of patients met the MCID for CMS, 90% for SANE, and 100% for VAS.

CONCLUSIONS

In the presence of an isolated subscapularis tear associated with long head of the biceps tendon pathologies, favorable clinical outcomes could be achieved by performing both tear repair and biceps tenodesis with a double-loaded single anchor. Most patients (>90%) achieved the MCID for the CMS, SANE, and VAS, indicating significant clinical improvement and satisfactory patient outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series.

An Expedited Sling Immobilization Protocol After Isolated Biceps Tenodesis Results in Clinical and Patient-Reported Postoperative Outcomes Equivalent to a Standard Rehabilitation Protocol

Purpose

To characterize clinical and patient-reported outcomes for patients after isolated biceps tenodesis (BT) who underwent either standard or expedited sling immobilization protocols following surgery.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study compared patients who were assigned to use a sling for either 4 to 6 weeks (standard) or 0 to 2 weeks (expedited) following an isolated BT. Primary endpoint included rate of re-rupture, surgical revision, loss of fixation, and Popeye deformity. Secondary endpoints included shoulder range of motion (ROM) as well as pre- and postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of pain and function. Missing data were managed via multiple imputation with chained equations. Complication prevalence 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the Clopper Pearson method and a series of hierarchical mixed effects linear regressions were performed to assess differences between sling interventions in PROs and ROM.

Results

The average age of the standard cohort (n = 66) was 49 years (±14 years), and the average age of the expedited cohort (n = 69) was 47 years (±14 years). The expedited and standardized cohorts demonstrated 0.4 and 0.3 complications per 10,000 exposure days, respectively, with no significant difference between groups (1.4 [95% confidence interval 0.2-10.0], P = .727). There was no demonstrated difference in forward flexion, abduction, or external ROM. The expedited group had less improvement in visual analog scale for pain scores that was not clinically significant and there were no differences in PROs of function.

Conclusions

No statistically significant difference in the rate of re-rupture, surgical revision, loss of fixation, or Popeye deformity was noted between protocols after isolated BT. Furthermore, there were no clinically significant differences in ROM or PROs identified between protocols after isolated BT. This study suggests that patients who have undergone isolated BT may safely discontinue sling use within 2 weeks after surgery.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Mild Biceps Tendonitis May Be Managed Nonoperatively During Shoulder Arthroscopy

Purpose

The purposes of this study were to determine whether patients with mild biceps tendonitis required revision surgery after the biceps tendon was not surgically treated, while addressing concomitant pathology, and to evaluate whether preoperative groove pain affected patient-reported outcomes.

Methods

Patients who underwent shoulder arthroscopy between 2015 and 2018 by a single surgeon for rotator cuff pathology, debridement, and distal clavicular excision (DCE), with or without subacromial decompression (SAD), and where the biceps tendon was not surgically addressed were retrospectively identified. Inclusion criteria were mild LS (<50% hyperemic appearing biceps tendon arthroscopically), and a minimum 2-year follow-up. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of revision surgery. Secondary outcomes included American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, simple shoulder test (SST), pain level, and satisfaction scores. Two sample t-tests compared postoperative patient-reported outcomes based on the presence or absence of preoperative bicipital groove tenderness.

Results

Sixty-four of 69 eligible subjects (93%) were evaluated at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively. One out of 64 subjects underwent revision to perform a biceps tenodesis. Overall, patients had high patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) postoperatively. Ninety-seven percent of patients reported they would have the surgery again. The presence of preoperative bicipital groove tenderness had no effect on ASES (P = .62), SST (P = .83) scores, and postoperative pain (P = .65). Patients without bicipital groove pain had average respective ASES and SST scores of 93.70 ± 11.84 and 10.66 ± 2.47; those with bicipital groove pain averaged 92.00 ± 15.31 and 10.78 ± 1.87. There was no significant difference in overall satisfaction scores between patients with groove pain (9.42 ± 1.40) and those without (9.46 ± 1.38; P = .92).

Conclusions

Patients with mild biceps tendonitis showed favorable outcomes with low revision rates and high patient satisfaction when the biceps tendon was not surgically addressed when the primary shoulder pathology was treated during arthroscopy, independent of preoperative groove pain.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Reproducible and Effective Biceps Tenodesis Method Utilizing In-Office Nano-Arthroscopy

Biceps tendinopathy is a common cause of chronic anterior shoulder pain characterized by altered joint mechanics with considerable deficits in range of motion secondary to pain. The benefits of in-office nano-arthroscopy (IONA) include the ability to diagnosis and treat biceps tendinopathy, quicker patient recovery, reduced cost, and improved patient satisfaction. The purpose of this technical report is to describe the technique for performing IONA for biceps tendinopathy (biceps tenotomy/biceps tenodesis), with special consideration for obtaining adequate local anesthesia, proper indications, adequate visualization, and the advantages of performing these procedures in the office rather than the operating room.

The long head of biceps at the shoulder: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

This review aimed to explore the available literature to update our understanding of the long head of biceps (LHB) at the shoulder. Synthesise our findings to identify emergent themes and knowledge gaps to inform future research and management directions.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cinahl, SportDiscus, CENTRAL, and Web of Science were searched from inception to 31st December 2021. Articles were included if they referenced adult participants > 18 years of age and were written in English.

RESULTS

214 articles were included in the final analysis, and results were categorised into six emergent themes: (1) Anatomy - Normal anatomical variation of the biceps from aberrant origins, third and fourth accessory heads, and an absence of the LHB tendon (LHBT) are not necessarily benign, with shoulder pain and instability a commonly reported theme. (2) Function - Bicep's role in glenohumeral elevation and stability in healthy shoulders is minimal. In contrast, LHB has a more significant role in shoulder stability and humeral head depression in subjects with rotator cuff failure or an absent LHBT. (3) Pathology - There is an association between LHB tendinopathy, rotator cuff disease, LHBT instability and occult rotator cuff tears. Early recruitment and hyperactivity of the LHB in subjects with symptomatic rotator cuff tears and instability suggest a potential compensatory role. (4) Assessment - The limited diagnostic utility of special orthopaedic tests in assessing LHBT pathology was a consistent theme. The utility of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound to identify full-thickness tendon tears and instability of the LHBT was moderate to high. However, the utility of clinical tests and imaging may be underestimated due to arthroscopy's limitations in fully visualising the proximal LHBT. (5) Non-Surgical Management - Ultrasound-guided injections into the biceps sheath show greater accuracy and patient outcomes than blinded injections; however, the entry of injectate into the intraarticular glenohumeral joint may have unwanted complications. (6) Surgical management - For the surgical management of biceps pathology with or without rotator cuff pathology, both biceps tenodesis and tenotomy report similar improvements in pain without any significant adverse effect on strength or function. Tenodesis favoured higher overall constant scores and a lower incidence of Popeye deformity and cramping arm pain, with tenotomy trending to be more cost and time effective. For patients with a healthy LHBT, rotator cuff repair with adjunctive tenodesis or tenotomy fails to provide additional clinical improvements compared to rotator cuff repair in isolation.

CONCLUSIONS

The scoping review highlights the variability of biceps anatomy, which is not necessarily benign and suggests a minimal role of the LHB in shoulder elevation and stability in healthy individuals. In contrast, individuals with rotator cuff tears experience proximal humeral migration and demonstrate hyperactivity of the LHB, suggesting a potential compensation role. The observed prevalence of LHBT pathology with rotator cuff tears is well established; however, the cause-and-effect relationship between LHBT pathology and rotator cuff disease is undetermined. The diagnostic utility of clinical tests and imaging to exclude LHBT pathology may be understated due to the limitations of arthroscopy to visualise the proximal LHBT fully. Rehabilitation programs for the LHB are understudied. Similar post-surgical clinical outcomes are observed for tenodesis and tenotomy for biceps and rotator cuff-related shoulder pain. Subjects undergoing biceps tenodesis are less likely to have cramping arm pain and a Popeye deformity than patients undergoing biceps tenotomy. The significance of routine surgical removal of the LHBT and sequelae on rotator cuff tear progression to failure and long-term shoulder function is unknown, and further research is required.

PRE-REGISTRATION

OSF: https://osf.io/erh9m.

Ultrasound is more reliable than clinical tests to both confirm and rule out pathologies of the long head of the biceps: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To synthesize the literature and critically appraise current evidence to determine the most accurate physical examination (clinical test or ultrasound) to detect pathologies of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT).

METHODS

A search was performed on PubMed, Embase®, and Cochrane. Studies that compared the diagnostic accuracy of clinical tests or ultrasound versus arthroscopy for the assessment of LHBT pathologies were included.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included reporting on a total of 448 patients. One study on instability using ultrasound reported sensitivity and specificity of 1.00 and 0.96, respectively. Two studies on full-thickness tears using ultrasound reported sensitivity and specificity of 0.88-0.95 and 0.71-0.98, respectively. Four studies on partial-thickness LHBT tears reported sensitivity and specificity of 0.17-0.68 and 0.38-0.92, respectively, for clinical tests, versus 0.27-0.71 and 0.71-1.00, respectively, for ultrasound. Three studies on other LHBT pathologies reported sensitivity and specificity of 0.18-0.79 and 0.53-0.85, respectively, for clinical tests, versus 0.50 and 1.00, respectively, for ultrasound.

CONCLUSION

To detect LHBT pathologies, sensitivity is high-to-excellent using ultrasound, and moderate using Neer's sign and Speed's test, while specificity is high-to-excellent also using ultrasound, as well as the belly press, lift-off and Kibler's tests. The clinical relevance of these findings is that clinical tests are only reliable either to confirm or rule out LHBT pathologies, whereas ultrasound is reliable both to confirm and rule out LHBT pathologies. While diagnostic imaging cannot substitute for patient history and physical examination, the reliability and accessibility of ultrasound render it practical for routine use, particularly if clinical tests render unclear or contradictory findings.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

[Comparison of the effectiveness of the long head of the biceps tendon with or without proximal amputation after arthroscopic repair of the rotator cuff]

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) with or without proximal amputation after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in the treatment of repairable rotator cuff tear with LHBT injury.

METHODS

The clinical data of 68 patients with LHBT injury combined with supraspinatus tendon tear who met the selection criteria between January 2016 and June 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. According to whether the proximal end of LHBT was cut off or not after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, they were divided into LHBT fixation without cutting group (group A, 32 cases) and LHBT fixation with cutting group (group B, 36 cases). There was no significant difference in gender, age, operating side, preoperative supraspinatus tear width, Constant-Murley shoulder function scale, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) score, and visual analogue scale (VAS) score between the two groups ( P>0.05). The operation time, elbow flexion muscle strength, and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups. The Constant-Murley shoulder function scale, UCLA score, and VAS score were used to evaluate the recovery of shoulder function before operation and at 3, 6, 12 months after operation. The acromion-humeral distance (AHD) was measured by Y-view X-ray film of the shoulder joint immediately after operation and at last follow-up. AHD and acromion-greater tubercle distance (AGT) were measured by musculoskeletal ultrasound at 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° of abduction.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in operation time between the two groups ( t=-0.740, P=0.463). Patients in both groups were followed up (13.0±0.7) months in group A and (13.1±0.8) months in group B, with no significant difference ( t=0.127, P=0.899). At last follow-up, the elbow flexor muscle strength of the two groups reached grade Ⅴ. Complications (including shoulder pain, deltoid atrophy, and rotator cuff re-tear) occurred in 6 patients (18.75%) in group A and 9 patients (25.00%) in group B, without neurovascular injury, surgical site infection, joint stiffness, LHBT spasmodic pain, and Popeye deformity. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups ( χ ²=0.385, P=0.535). The Constant-Murley shoulder function scale, UCLA score, and VAS score significantly improved in both groups at 3, 6, and 12 months after operation ( P>0.05). The above scores in group B were significantly better than those in group A at 3 and 6 months after operation ( P<0.05), and there was no significant difference between the two groups at 12 months after operation ( P>0.05). Y-view X-ray film measurement of the shoulder joint showed that the AHD of the two groups at last follow-up was less than that at immediate after operation, but the difference was not significant ( Z=-1.247, P=0.212); the AHD of group A was significantly greater than that of group B at last follow-up ( t=-2.291, P=0.025). During musculoskeletal ultrasound detection of abduction and shoulder lift, there was no significant difference in the reduction degree of AHD and AGT in group A with abduction of 0°-30° compared with group B ( P>0.05). The reduction degree of AHD and AGT in group A with abduction of 30°-60°, and the reduction degree of AGT in group A with abduction of 60°-90° were significantly smaller than those in group B ( P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

In arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, whether the proximal structure of LHBT is cut off or not after LHBT fixation can effectively improve the symptoms of patients and promote the recovery of shoulder joint function. Compared with preserving the proximal structure of LHBT, cutting the proximal structure of LHBT after LHBT fixation has more obvious pain relief within 6 months, and the latter had better stability above the shoulder joint.

3D imaging has good specificity but poor sensitivity for the diagnosis of pathologies of the long head of the biceps: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To systematically review and meta-analyse the literature to determine which three-dimensional (3D) imaging modality provides the best diagnostic accuracy to detect pathologies of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search was performed on PubMed, Embase^®, and Cochrane. Studies that compared the diagnostic accuracy of 3D imaging modalities versus arthroscopy for the assessment of LHBT pathologies were included. Studies assessing superior labral anterior posterior (SLAP) lesions were excluded.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were included; nine were eligible for meta-analysis. Six studies on instability indicated a sensitivity of 0.68 (CI 0.46-0.84) and specificity of 0.76 (CI 0.68-0.82). Four studies on full-thickness tears indicated a sensitivity of 0.56 (CI 0.28-0.81) and specificity of 0.97 (CI 0.93-0.99). Four studies on partial-thickness tears indicated a sensitivity of 0.52 (CI 0.20-0.82) and specificity of 0.64 (CI 0.25-0.91). Two studies on any tear indicated a sensitivity of 0.58 (CI 0.28-0.83) and specificity of 0.99 (CI 0.93-1.00). Only one study on other pathologies indicated a sensitivity of 0.61 and specificity of 0.84.

CONCLUSION

To diagnose LHBT pathologies, 3D imaging modalities overall have low-to-moderate sensitivity, but high-to-excellent specificity. The consistency in reported sensitivity is generally poor, while the consistency and reported specificity is good for the detection of instability, full-thickness tears and any tear, but poor for the detection of partial-thickness tears. 3D imaging may be adequate to rule out LHBT pathologies, but are not sufficiently reliable to confirm the presence of such pathologies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Arthroscopic Single-Portal Suprapectoral Biceps Tenodesis With All-Suture Anchor

Tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon can be performed through arthroscopic and open techniques with various fixation methods and at different locations on the humerus. Many techniques have been described, with controversy surrounding the advantages and disadvantages of each. In this Technical Note, we describe an all-arthroscopic, intra-articular, single-portal, suprapectoral biceps tenodesis with an all-suture anchor. This technique also allows for suture passage through the biceps tendon before tenotomy to ensure proper maintenance of the length-tension relationship of the biceps musculotendinous unit.

Clinical Outcomes of Revision Biceps Tenodesis for Failed Long Head of Biceps Surgery: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

We summarize the indications, assess the modes of failure, and analyze the clinical and functional outcomes of revision biceps tenodesis after failed primary surgical treatment of long head of biceps (LHB) pathology.

METHODS

A computerized search of PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases and manual screening of selected article reference lists was performed in September 2020. Randomized controlled trial, cohort, case-control, and case series studies reporting clinical outcomes of revision biceps tenodesis following failed LHB surgery were eligible. Patient demographics, indications for revision, intraoperative findings, surgical techniques, and patient-reported outcomes were recorded. Functional assessment and pain scores were assessed and summarized as forest plots with means and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Five of 465 identified studies met inclusion criteria, encompassing 70 revision biceps tenodesis procedures with mean follow-up of 2.4-6.4 years. The failed index procedure was biceps tenodesis in 62 patients and tenotomy in 8 patients. The most common indications for revision were pain or cramping and rerupture, cited by 4 and 3 articles, respectively. After failed conservative treatment, open subpectoral revision tenodesis was performed with concomitant arthroscopic debridement in 65 of 70 cases. Common intraoperative findings at time of revision were adhesions or scarring (39.0-83.0%), fixation failure (8.7-75.0%), and biceps rupture (17.4-80.0%). Revision tenodesis patients reported good to excellent functional outcomes with improvements in Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder, and visual analog scale pain scores, and satisfaction ranged from 88.0 to 100%. All studies demonstrated moderate quality of evidence and risk of bias when critically appraised.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review of 5 moderate risk of bias studies demonstrated that the most common reasons for revision biceps tenodesis were pain or cramping and rerupture. Open subpectoral revision tenodesis with concomitant arthroscopic debridement provided improvements in functional scores with high patient satisfaction at mid-term follow up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, Systematic Review of level III and IV investigations.

Isolated Biceps Tenodesis and Tenotomy: A Systematic Review of Indications and Patient Satisfaction

Biceps tenodesis and tenotomy are increasingly being used as treatment options for shoulder pathology, but patient satisfaction remains largely unstudied. A systematic review of the MEDLINE database was conducted to identify clinical outcome studies on isolated biceps tenodesis or tenotomy that reported patient satisfaction. Within the 15 investigations that were included, the indication for tenotomy was rotator cuff pathology, whereas the indication for tenodesis was biceps pathology or type 2 superior labral tear from anterior to posterior. Patients undergoing tenotomy were 13.6 years older than those undergoing tenodesis (P<.001). Patient satisfaction was high following both procedures, at 85.6% following tenotomy and 92.3% following tenodesis. [Orthopedics. 2021;44(6):333-340.].

Early Versus Delayed Active Range of Motion After Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis

Background

Little is known regarding the effect of early active elbow range of motion (ROM) protocols on failure rates and outcomes after open subpectoral biceps tenodesis.

Hypothesis

We hypothesized that patients managed using an early active ROM protocol after open subpectoral biceps tenodesis would demonstrate similar failure rates and functional outcomes compared to patients managed using a traditional delayed active ROM protocol.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

We evaluated 63 patients who underwent open subpectoral biceps tenodesis with unicortical suture button fixation. Based on surgeon preference, 22 patients were managed using an early active motion protocol consisting of no restrictions on elbow flexion or forearm supination, while 41 patients were managed using a delayed motion protocol postoperatively. Primary outcome measures included failure of biceps tenodesis and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) scores. Secondary outcomes included shoulder and elbow ROM at 6 months postoperatively.

Results

The mean follow-up for the 63 patients was 24.2 months postoperatively. One patient (2.4%) in the delayed active motion cohort and no patients in the early active motion cohort experienced failure. Final outcome scores as well as 6-month shoulder and elbow ROM indicated excellent functional outcomes, with no significant difference between motion cohorts. The median postoperative ASES scores were 97.99 in the early active motion cohort (mean ± standard deviation [SD], 95.49 ± 7.68) and 95.42 in the delayed motion cohort (mean ± SD, 90.93 ± 16.08), while median postoperative SANE scores were 96 in the early motion cohort (mean ± SD, 94.23 ± 6.68) and 95 in the delayed motion cohort (mean ± SD, 88.39 ± 17.98). Subgroup analysis demonstrated no significant difference in outcome scores based on the performance of concomitant rotator cuff repair or hand dominance.

Conclusion

Early active ROM after open subpectoral biceps tenodesis with unicortical suture button fixation resulted in low failure rates and excellent clinical outcomes, comparable to the results of patients managed using delayed active ROM protocols. This suggests that patients undergoing open subpectoral biceps tenodesis may be managed using either early or delayed active motion protocols without compromising functional outcome.

Progression of long head of the biceps brachii tendon abnormality on magnetic resonance imaging after rotator cuff repair

OBJECTIVES

To correlate the deterioration of preserved long head of biceps tendon (LHB) after rotator cuff repair with preoperative and postoperative MRI factors.

METHODS

Total of 209 shoulder joints (F:M = 145:64; mean age 57.4 years) which underwent rotator cuff repair and at least two postoperative MRI scans over 10 months after surgery were included. LHB integrity was graded with a five point severity scale. LHB deterioration was defined by increased composite score of integrity and extent score between the preoperative and second postoperative MRI. For preoperative and postoperative MRI factors, size and location of superior cuff -supraspinatus and infraspinatus- and subscapularis tears, fatty degeneration of rotator cuff, preoperative LHB status, subluxation of LHB, superior labral tear, acromion type, repaired rotator cuff status, postoperative capsulitis and acromioplasty state were assessed. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between LHB deterioration and aforementioned factors. Same analysis was conducted for 62 shoulder joints with a long-term follow-up MRI.

RESULTS

Of the 209 shoulders, 49.3% (n = 103) showed LHB deterioration on short-term follow-up MRI. In long-term follow-up subgroup, 32 LHBs were further deteriorated. In multivariate analysis, fatty degeneration of superior cuff showed significant association with LHB deterioration in both short-term (p = .04, p = .007) and long-term subgroups (p = .004, p = .005) among preoperative and postoperative factors, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Degree of fatty degeneration in superior cuff is associated with LHB deterioration on postoperative MRI.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

Our results support that tenotomy or tenodesis of LHB should be considered during rotator cuff repair, especially in patients with advanced fatty degeneration of rotator cuff.

Subpectoral versus suprapectoral biceps tenodesis yields similar clinical outcomes: a systematic review

IMPORTANCE

Arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (ABT) and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis (OBT) are two surgical treatment options for relief of long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) pathology and superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) tears. There is insufficient knowledge regarding the clinical superiority of one technique over the other.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the literature in order to compare the clinical outcomes and safety of ABT and OBT for treatment of LHBT or SLAP pathology.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Embase to identify studies that compared the clinical efficacy of ABT versus OBT. The search phrase used was: (bicep OR biceps OR biceps brachii OR long head of biceps brachii OR biceps tendinopathy) AND (tenodesis). Patients were assessed based on the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score, the visual analogue scale, the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, Constant-Murley Score, clinical failure, range of motion, bicipital groove pain and strength. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed, and both the Cochrane Collaboration's and Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) risk of bias tools were used to evaluate risk of bias.

FINDINGS

Eight studies (one level I, seven level III) met inclusion criteria, including 326 patients undergoing ABT and 381 patients undergoing OBT. No differences were found in treatment failure rates or patient-reported outcome scores between groups in any study. One study found OBT patients to experience significantly increased range of shoulder forward flexion when compared with ABT patients (p=0.049). Two studies found ABT patients to experience significantly more postoperative stiffness when compared with OBT patients (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing ABT and OBT can be expected to experience similar improvements in clinical outcomes at latest follow-up without differences treatment failure or functional performance. ABT patients may experience an increased incidence of stiffness in the early postoperative period.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Clinical Trial Registry Use in Orthopaedic Surgery Systematic Reviews

BACKGROUND

Results from systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which have the highest level of evidence (Level I), often drive clinical decision-making and health policy. Often, unpublished trial data are omitted from systematic reviews, raising concerns about the extent of the reliability and validity of results that have been drawn from systematic reviews. We aimed to determine the extent to which systematic review authors include searches of clinical trial registries for unpublished data when conducting systematic reviews in orthopaedic surgery.

METHODS

Systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses were gathered from the top 5 orthopaedic surgery journals based on the h5-index from Google Scholar Metrics. Systematic reviews that had been published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, which requires the inclusion of a clinical trial registry search, served as controls. For the primary outcome, each systematic review from the top 5 orthopaedic journals was screened to determine whether the authors of each study searched for unpublished data in clinical trial registries. We then compared the rate of registry searches with those in the control group. For the secondary analysis, a search of ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for unpublished trial data for 100 randomized systematic reviews.

RESULTS

All 38 of the Cochrane systematic reviews (100%) included clinical trial registry searches, while the top 5 orthopaedic journals had only 31 of 480 studies (6.5%) that looked at clinical trial registries. The secondary analysis yielded 59 of 100 systematic review articles (59.0%) that could have included unpublished clinical trial data from ≥1 studies to their sample.

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic reviews that have been published in the top orthopaedic surgery journals seldom included a search for unpublished clinical trial data.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The exclusion of clinical trial registry searches potentially contributes to publication bias within the orthopaedic literature. Moving forward, systematic review authors should include clinical trial registry searches for unpublished clinical trial data to provide the most accurate representation of the available evidence for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Biceps tenodesis versus tenotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of level I randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Biceps tenodesis and tenotomy are 2 surgical treatment options for relief of long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) pathology and superior labrum anterior-to-posterior (SLAP) tears. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the clinical outcomes and complications of biceps tenodesis and tenotomy for the treatment of LHBT or SLAP pathology during shoulder arthroscopy.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify level I randomized controlled trials that compared the clinical outcomes of biceps tenodesis vs. tenotomy. The search phrase used was as follows: biceps tenodesis tenotomy randomized. Patients were assessed based on the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, visual analog scale score for pain, and Constant-Murley score, as well as postoperative range of motion, strength, and cosmetic deformity.

RESULTS

Five studies (all level I) met the inclusion criteria, including 236 patients undergoing biceps tenodesis (mean age, 60.3 years) and 232 patients undergoing biceps tenotomy (mean age, 59.7 years). The mean follow-up period was 23.0 months. Overall, 6.8% of tenodesis patients experienced cosmetic deformity at latest follow-up compared with 23.3% of tenotomy patients (P < .001). No differences in Constant-Murley, visual analog scale, or American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores were found between groups in any study, and of all the studies evaluating strength and range of motion at latest follow-up, only 1 found a significant difference between groups, in which tenodesis patients demonstrated significantly increased forearm supination strength (P = .02). One study found tenodesis patients to experience significantly more biceps cramping at 6-month follow-up compared with tenotomy patients (P = .043), although no differences in complication rates at latest follow-up were found in any study.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing treatment for LHBT or SLAP pathology with either biceps tenodesis or tenotomy can be expected to experience similar improvements in patient-reported and functional outcomes. There is an increased rate of cosmetic deformity in patients undergoing biceps tenotomy compared with tenodesis.

How can we define clinically important improvement in pain scores after biceps tenodesis?

BACKGROUND

Patient postoperative pain is an important consideration following biceps tenodesis. The visual analog scale (VAS) for pain is one of the most commonly used measures for perioperative pain assessment. Currently, there is limited understanding of clinically significant improvement in VAS pain.

PURPOSE

To define the substantial clinical benefit (SCB), patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS), and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the VAS pain score in patients undergoing open subpectoral (OSPBT) or arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (ASPBT) at 1 year from surgery; and to identify preoperative predictors of achieving each outcome end point.

METHODS

Data from consecutive patients who underwent isolated biceps tenodesis between January 2014 and March 2017 were collected and analyzed. Baseline data and postoperative patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores were recorded at 1 year postoperatively. In order to quantify the clinical significance of outcome achievement for the VAS pain score, the MCID, PASS, and SCB were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 165 patients were included in the final analysis. The VAS pain score threshold for achieving MCID was defined as a decrease of 12.9 (0-100). PASS was defined as achieving a 2-year postoperative score of 27.4 points (0-100), and SCB was defined as a decrease of 25.1 (0-100) at 1-year follow-up. The rates of achieving MCID, PASS, and SCB were 73.3%, 52.8%, and 45.9%, respectively. Multivariate regression analysis demonstrated that ASPBT (P = .01) and a lower preoperative Constant-Murley score were predictive of achieving the MCID (P = .01). In contrast, a lower preoperative score on the SF-12 Physical Component Summary (P = .01) and a higher score on the preoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (P < .001) were predictive of achieving the SCB and PASS, respectively. Preoperative duration of symptoms >6 months was predictive of a reduced likelihood to achieve PASS.

CONCLUSION

This study identified scores for VAS pain that can be used to define clinically significant outcome after biceps tenodesis. Specifically, a decrease in pain score of 12.9 was a clinically important improvement in VAS pain, whereas a decrease of 25.1 represented the upper threshold of VAS pain improvement. Additionally, there were both modifiable and nonmodifiable factors that predicted achieving clinically significant levels of postoperative pain improvement.

The "Sandwich Tenodesis": An Arthroscopic Technic for Combined Soft-Tissue and Bony Fixation of the Long Head of the Biceps

Pathology of the long head of the biceps can contribute to substantial shoulder pain. After nonoperative treatment has failed, either open or arthroscopic tenotomy or tenodesis can be recommended depending on age, occupation, function, and cosmetic preference. While classic tenodesis techniques rely on tendon-to-bone fixation, multiple studies have shown superior healing results for fixation between similar types of tissue, such as tendon-to-tendon. In this technique, we present the "sandwich technique," performed entirely arthroscopically. A single 4-strand anchor with bioabsorbable screw is used to provide 2 types of fixation. Two strands are first used to lasso-loop the long head of the biceps to the bicipital groove, providing bone-to-tendon fixation. The other strands are then used to anchor rotator interval tissue to the tendon, providing a similar tissue or tendon-to-tendon patch augmentation.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Biceps Tenodesis Fixation Strengths: Fixation Type and Location Are Biomechanically Equivalent

PURPOSE

The purpose of this meta-analysis and systematic review was to critically evaluate the biomechanical outcomes of different fixation constructs for a variety of biceps tenodesis techniques in cadaveric models based on both type of fixation and location.

METHODS

A PROSPERO-registered systematic review (CCRD42018109243) of the current literature was conducted with the terms "long head of biceps" AND "tenodesis" AND "biomechanics" and numerous variations thereof in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases, yielding 1,460 abstracts. After screening by eligibility criteria, 18 full-text articles were included. The individual biomechanical factors evaluated included ultimate load to failure (in newtons), stiffness (in newtons per millimeter), and cyclic displacement (in millimeters). After reviewing the included literature, we performed a quality analysis of the studies (Quality Appraisal for Cadaveric Studies scale score) and a meta-analysis comparing raw mean differences in data between the suprapectoral and subpectoral fixation location groups, as well as between the fixation construct groups.

RESULTS

Among the 18 included studies, 347 cadaveric specimens were evaluated for ultimate load to failure, stiffness, and cyclic displacement when comparing both location (suprapectoral vs subpectoral) and tenodesis fixation type (interference screw vs cortical button, suture anchor, or all-soft-tissue techniques). Interference screw fixation showed significantly greater mean stiffness by 8.0 N/mm (P = .013) compared with the other grouped techniques but did not show significant differences when evaluated for ultimate load to failure and cyclic displacement (P = .28 and P = .18, respectively). Additionally, no difference in construct strength was seen when comparing the fixation strength of suprapectoral versus subpectoral techniques for stiffness, ultimate load to failure, and cyclic loading (P = .47, P = .053, and P = .13, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, no significant biomechanical differences were found when the results were stratified by specific surgical technique (interference screw vs other tenodesis techniques) and location (suprapectoral vs subpectoral biceps tenodesis).

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

As a result of this study, when biomechanically evaluating specific tenodesis constructs, the individual clinician has the liberty of choosing the fixation technique based on his or her preference and knowledge of shortcomings of each type of fixation construct.

High-Tensile Strength Tapes Show Greater Ultimate Failure Load and Less Stiffness Than High-Tensile Strength Sutures in a Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Porcine Model

Purpose

To compare the biomechanical properties of high-tensile strength tape and a high-tensile strength suture in subpectoral biceps tenodesis using a suture anchor in a porcine tendon model.

Methods

A total of 24 artificial composite (polymer and glass fiber) humeri and porcine flexor profundus tendons were used. Two types of suture materials, high-tensile strength sutures (group S) and high-tensile strength tapes (group T), were evaluated. After we inserted metallic suture anchors with either 2 sutures or tapes 5 cm from the superomedial corner of the greater tuberosity, a Krackow suture technique was used to secure the tendons. After a preload of 5 N for 2 minutes, a cyclic loading test from 5 to 70 N was conducted for 500 cycles. Finally, the specimen was loaded to failure at a rate of 1 mm/s.

Results

There were no significant between-group differences in elongation after cyclic loading and elongation at failure load for group S and group T (P = .977 and .630, respectively). The ultimate failure loads in group T (278.2 ± 54 N) were significantly greater than those in group S (249.4 ± 32 N) (P = .028). In contrast, the stiffness values in group T (28.5 ± 4.0 N/mm) were significantly lower than those in group S (32.3 ± 4.5 N) (P = .028). Ten specimens in group S and 8 specimens in group T failed, with tendons being cut through by the sutures, whereas the other 2 specimens in group S and 4 specimens in group T failed due to suture breakage.

Conclusions

Using high-tensile strength tapes in subpectoral biceps tenodesis using a suture anchor leads to significantly greater ultimate failure load as compared with using high-tensile strength sutures in a porcine model. Although lower levels of stiffness were found in high-tensile strength tape group, the difference in the means were not large between 2 groups.

Clinical Relevance

A strong suture–tendon structure may prevent clinical failure of a subpectoral biceps tenodesis using a suture anchor.

Using Interconnected Knotless Anchor for Suprapectoral Biceps Tenodesis Could Offer Improved Biomechanical Properties in a Cadaveric Model

PURPOSE

To compare the biomechanical characteristics of the interconnected knotless anchor (IKA) fixation with the double knotless anchor (DKA) and interference screw (IS) fixation in the suprapectoral biceps tenodesis.

METHODS

In total, 24 fresh-frozen human cadaveric shoulders (mean age, 67.3 ± 6 years) were used for the study. All the specimens were randomly divided into 3 experimental biceps tenodesis groups (n = 8): IKA, DKA, and IS. After tenodesis, each specimen was preloaded at 5 N for 2 minutes, followed by a cyclic loading test from 5 to 70 N for 500 load cycles. Finally, a destructive axial load to failure test (1 mm/s) was performed. All the values, including ultimate failure load, stiffness, cyclic displacement, and mode of failure were evaluated.

RESULTS

The IKA provided the highest construct stiffness (38.9 ± 7.7 N/mm) and ultimate failure load (288.3 ± 47.6 N), the results for which were statistically better than the corresponding results in the IS and DKA groups. In terms of cyclic displacement, there were no statistical differences among the 3 fixation constructs. The most common failure mode was biceps tendon tearing in IS group (7/8) and IKA group (8/8). In the contrast, suture slippage accounted for the most common failure mode in DKA.

CONCLUSIONS

In suprapectoral bicep tenodesis, IKA fixation appears to offer improved construct stiffness and ultimate failure load while maintaining comparable suture slippage as compared with IS fixation or DKA fixation in the current biomechanical study.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The IKA fixation compares favorably with other techniques and could be an alternative clinical option for suprapectoral biceps tenodesis.

Supraspinatus Muscle Tendon Lesion and Its Relationship with Long Head of the Biceps Lesion

Objective  To identify the clinical, radiological, and arthroscopic correlation of long head of the biceps tendon injuries and their influence on pain when associated with rotator cuff injuries. Methods  Between April and December 2013, 50 patients were evaluated, including 38 (76%) women and 12 (24%) men, with a mean age of 65.1 years old. The patients were operated by the Shoulder and Elbow Group, Discipline of Sports Medicine, Orthopedics and Traumatology Department, Universidade Federal de São Paulo. The subjects underwent repair of the rotator cuff lesion with clinical, radiological and/or arthroscopic evidence of involvement of the long head of the biceps tendon. Results  An association between pain at palpation of the intertubercular groove of the humerus and high-grade partial lesions (partial rupture of the tendon affecting more than 50% of its structure) was observed at the arthroscopy ( p  = 0.003). There was also an association between the high-grade lesion of the long head of the biceps and injury to the supraspinatus muscle tendon ( p  < 0.05). For each centimeter of the supraspinatus muscle tendon injury, the patient presented a 1.7 higher probability of having a high-grade lesion at the long head of the biceps. Conclusion  Pain at the anterior shoulder region during palpation of the intertubercular groove of the humerus may be related to high-grade lesions to the long head of the biceps. Rotator cuff injury and its size are risk factors for high-grade injuries to the long head of the biceps tendon.

All-Arthroscopic Long Head of the Biceps Transfer: An Optional Technique for Soft-Tissue Biceps Tenodesis

Proximal tendinopathy of the long head of the biceps (LHB) is a common shoulder problem that requires surgical intervention, especially in patients with concomitant rotator cuff tears. The comparative results of biceps tenotomy and biceps tenodesis are still doubtful; both techniques show good to excellent results in terms of postoperative pain and functional outcomes. The described technique-all-arthroscopic LHB transfer-is an optional biceps tenodesis technique using all-arthroscopic soft-tissue tenodesis and arthroscopic suturing of the LHB to the short head of the biceps and coracoacromial ligament combined with release of the LHB from the bicipital groove.

Mini-open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Using All-Suture Anchor

The proximal biceps tendon is a common source of shoulder pain and dysfunction. When patients continue to have pain after exhaustive nonoperative treatment, the long head of the biceps tendon can be effectively treated with a tenotomy or tenodesis. Although biceps tenotomy is a less complex and highly reliable treatment, there is the potential for suboptimal outcomes including muscle cramping, fatigue, cosmetic deformity, and supination weakness. Biceps tenodesis eliminates the source of shoulder pain while securing the tendon proximally. Currently, there are multiple techniques for performing a biceps tenodesis (arthroscopic, open suprapectoral, open subpectoral) and myriad fixation methods (bio-tenodesis screw, bone bridge, cortical button, all-suture anchor). Our article presents a technique for a mini-open subpectoral biceps tenodesis using an onlay technique with an all-suture anchor preloaded with needles. This technique allows efficient and proper tendon fixation while minimizing potential complications.

The Double Krackow Suture Technique Does Not Offer a Significant Benefit Compared to the Krackow Suture Technique in Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Using a Double-Loaded Suture Anchor

PURPOSE

To compare the biomechanical properties of the double simple suture (DSS) technique, Krackow suture (KS) technique, and double Krackow suture (DKS) technique in subpectoral biceps tenodesis using a double-loaded suture anchor in a porcine tendon model.

METHODS

A total of 30 artificial composite (polymer and glass fiber) humeri and porcine flexor profundus tendons with diameter of 4.5 mm were used. The sample size was determined based on the results of the pilot study. Metallic suture anchors with double-loaded No. 2 braided sutures were inserted at the subpectoral tenodesis site, 5 cm from the superomedial corner of the greater tuberosity. Three suture techniques were used to fix the tendons: a DSS used as the control, a KS, and a DKS, which is an alternative tendon graft fixation technique. A preload of 5 N was applied for 2 minutes, followed by cyclic loading for 500 cycles ranging from 5 to 70 N; next, a load-to-failure test at 1 mm/s was performed.

RESULTS

The KS (283.5 ± 57 N) and DKS (270.4 ± 50 N) groups had significantly greater ultimate failure loads as compared with the DSS group (84.1 ± 6.4 N) (P < .001). Meanwhile, the peak displacement at failure loads in the KS group (9.3 ± 2.2 mm) and DKS group (7.8 ± 1.7 mm) were significantly smaller than that of the DSS group (11.3 ± 2.9 mm) (P = .015). Stiffness in the DSS group (36.4 ± 3.0 N/mm), KS group (39.6 ± 2.5 N/mm), and DKS group (36.9 ± 4.6 N/mm) was not significantly different (P = .125). All DSS constructs and 6 KS constructs failed with tendons being cut through by the sutures, whereas the other 4 KS constructs and all DKS constructs failed resulting from suture breakage.

CONCLUSIONS

In this subpectoral biceps tenodesis model, both the KS technique and the DKS technique had similar time 0 biomechanical properties that were better than those of the double simple suture technique.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

A sturdy suture-tendon structure could prevent clinical failure of a subpectoral biceps tenodesis using a suture anchor.

Management of Failed Proximal Biceps Surgery: Clinical Outcomes After Revision to Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis

BACKGROUND

The preferred surgical technique to manage biceps-superior labral pathology is often debated, and rates of revision and persistence of pain vary widely according to surgical technique and patient characteristics.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical and functional outcomes of patients undergoing revision subpectoral tenodesis after failed primary tenodesis or tenotomy of the long head of the biceps.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

All patients undergoing revision biceps management by the senior surgeon between 2006 and 2016 and with a minimum 24-month follow-up were retrospectively identified. Patients being treated with concomitant rotator cuff repair or capsular release were excluded. Patient characteristic variables were recorded. Patient-reported outcomes including the functional score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), visual analog scale (VAS), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons were obtained, and range of motion, strength, and complications were quantified.

RESULTS

In total, 25 patients with revision biceps tenodesis were identified at a mean follow-up of 76.5 ± 31.5 months. The average age was 44.4 ± 14.3 years, and the surgical indications included failure of index suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (56%), subpectoral biceps tenodesis (36%), and patient dissatisfaction after tenotomy (8%). There was a significant improvement in the VAS score (P < .001), SANE (P = .001), SST (P = .035), functional score (P < .001), and forward elevation (P = .028), whereas postoperative strength (P = .440), abduction (P = .100), and external rotation (P = .745) improvement failed to achieve statistical significance after revision surgery. There was no difference in postoperative outcome measures between modes of failures, concomitant procedures, and sex. Twenty-two (88%) patients reported high satisfaction and stated they would have this revision surgery again. The overall complication rate was 48%, with half of these reporting pain of >3 on a scale of 10 and 4% of patients requiring additional surgeries.

CONCLUSION

The current study demonstrates high patient satisfaction (88%) and significant improvement in functional outcomes with revision biceps tenodesis, a mini-open subpectoral technique, after previous failed tenodesis or tenotomy. Although this may be an effective strategy to address failed prior biceps surgery, the potential complication of persistent pain must be emphasized. Patients should be counseled on the high complication rate (48%), with persistent pain being the most common complaint.

The new LassoLoop360° technique for biomechanically superior tissue grip

PURPOSE

Suprapectoral tenodesis is a frequently used technique for treating pathologies of the long head of the biceps brachii (LHBB) tendon. However, so far, no Gold Standard treatment exist. Hence, the arthroscopic LassoLoop360 (LL360) technique is introduced aiming to provide secure fixation and improved biomechanical properties. It was hypothesized, that the LL360 technique would show superior biomechanical response to cyclic loading and ultimate load-to-failure testing compared to the commonly used simple Lasso Loop (SLL).

METHODS

Twenty-two porcine superficial flexor digitorum tendons were prepared using a No. 2 suture according to either the SLL or the LL360 technique. Displacement after cyclic loading (1.000 cycles) between 5 and 30 N, ultimate load-to-failure (ULTF), mode of failure as well as the construct stiffness were tested.

RESULTS

Significantly less displacement was found in the LL360 group (SLL 2.25 ± 0.51 mm; LL360 1.67 ± 0.37 mm; p = 0.01). Ultimate Load to Failure was significantly higher in the LL360 (168.6 ± 29.6 N) as compared to the SLL (124.1 ± 25.8 N, p = 0.02). The LL360 also revealed a significant higher stiffness compared to the SLL (SLL 13.1 ± 0.9 N/mm vs. LL360 19.1 ± 1.0 N/mm, p < 0.001). The most common mode of failure was the suture cutting through the tendon, with a significantly less suture cutting through for the LL360 compared with the SLL (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The LassoLoop360-technique offers superior biomechanical characteristics regarding the tendon-suture-interface compared to the SLL. In the initial healing phase, the suture-tendon-interface is the most vulnerable part of the tendon-suture-anchor construct, the aim of this new technique is to reduce this weakest part of the chain (Ponce et al., Am J Sports Med 39:188-194, 2011). This technique may therefore be beneficial for arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis at the entrance of the bicipital groove.

Increased reoperation rates among patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy with concomitant biceps tenodesis

Background

The purpose of this study was to determine whether patients undergoing any shoulder arthroscopic procedure with concomitant biceps tenodesis have higher reoperation and complication rates vs. patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy without concomitant biceps tenodesis.

Methods

A large database was queried for patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy, identified by Current Procedural Terminology code. Only records indicating the laterality of the procedure were included. Patients were divided into 3 cohorts: arthroscopic shoulder surgery without concomitant biceps tenodesis (group 1), surgery with arthroscopic biceps tenodesis (group 2), and surgery with open biceps tenodesis (group 3). Reoperations on the same shoulder, as well as medical or surgical complications (by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code) during the 30-day postoperative period, were determined. Multivariate logistic regression was used to control for differences in age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index between groups.

Results

We identified 62,461 patients (54.3% male patients) in the database who underwent shoulder arthroscopy, with 51,773 patients in group 1, 7134 patients in group 2, and 3554 patients in group 3. Overall, 3134 patients (5.0%) underwent a shoulder arthroscopy reoperation. With adjustment for age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, the biceps intervention groups demonstrated a significantly higher overall reoperation rate (odds ratio, 1.3 [95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.5]; P < .001). Patients undergoing biceps tenodesis had a lower adjusted overall 30-day complication rate vs. those not undergoing tenodesis (odds ratio, 0.82 [95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.86]; P < .001).

Conclusion

Reoperation rates were significantly higher in patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy with biceps tenodesis than in patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy without biceps tenodesis. Both the arthroscopic and open tenodesis groups had significantly lower complication rates.

Diagnostic accuracy of MRI for detection of tears and instability of proximal long head of biceps tendon: an evaluation of 100 shoulders compared with arthroscopy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detection of instability and tears of the proximal long head of biceps tendon (LHBT). To assess intraobserver and interobserver agreement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of 100 consecutive shoulders who underwent non-contrast 1.5-T MRI prior to arthroscopic surgery due to rotator cuff injury. Images were independently analyzed by two musculoskeletal radiologists. LHBT was evaluated for presence of tearing (intact, longitudinal split, partial-thickness, or full-thickness) and position (normal, subluxated, and dislocated). Anterosuperior rotator cuff tears were also assessed. The reference standard was arthroscopic surgery. The ramp test was performed in order to evaluate LHBT stability. Diagnostic performance measures were determined and Kappa coefficients assessed agreement.

RESULTS

Concerning the detection of overall tears, sensitivity ranged from 71 to 73% and specificity was 73%. The specificity for full-thickness tears ranged from 75 to 96%. Overall displacement showed sensitivity ranging from 51 to 58% and specificity ranging from 70 to 86%. The specificity of overall displacement combined with anterosuperior rotator cuff tears ranged from 73 to 91%. Interobserver Kappa values were between 0.59 and 0.69. Intraobserver Kappa values were between 0.74 and 0.82.

CONCLUSIONS

MRI has moderate accuracy and good agreement for detection of LHBT tears and instability. There is a tendency for increased specificity for full-thickness tears and for instability in the coexistence of anterosuperior rotator cuff tears.

Arthroscopic Tenodesis of the Long Head Biceps Tendon Using a Double Lasso-Loop Suture Anchor Configuration

Multiple different techniques exist for performing a biceps tenodesis, and the literature has yet to define a particular technique as superior with respect to outcomes. Factors as the center of various clinical and biomechanical studies include analyzing arthroscopic versus open techniques, optimal fixation sites, and the use specific fixation devices (i.e., anchor, screw). This article details an all-arthroscopic approach for proximal tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) using a 2-portal method in a minimally invasive manner. Optimal biomechanical fixation of the LHBT is achieve by using 2 suture anchors in the creation of a dual lasso-loop configuration at the level of the bicipital groove. Technical pearls with respect to optimal arthroscopic viewing, efficient identification of the LHBT and subsequent release from the bicipital groove, and appropriate use of suture anchors for lasso-loop creation are presented for review. Two specific technical advantages of this technique include 2 fixation points for the LHBT to minimize failure risk, and smaller drill holes when compared with commonly performed tenodesis screw techniques to theoretically limit humeral fracture risk.

Establishing minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptomatic state after biceps tenodesis

BACKGROUND

The purposes of this study were to establish thresholds for improvement in patient-reported outcome scores that signify the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) after biceps tenodesis (BT) and to assess patient variables that are associated with these clinically important outcomes.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained institutional shoulder registry was queried for patients undergoing isolated BT between 2014 and 2017. Anchor-based and distribution-based approaches were used to calculate the MCID whereas an anchor-based method was used to calculate the SCB and PASS for the Constant-Murley score, Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE) score, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score.

RESULTS

A total of 123 patients who underwent isolated BT were included for analysis. The MCID, SCB, and PASS calculated for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score were 11.0, 16.8, and 59.6, respectively. For the Constant-Murley score, the calculated MCID and PASS were 3.8 and 19.5, respectively. The MCID, SCB, and PASS calculated for the SANE score were 3.5, 5.8, and 65.5, respectively. The following patient variables were significantly associated with decreased odds of achieving the MCID: workers' compensation status, male sex, and higher preoperative SANE score. Patients with a history of ipsilateral shoulder surgery had significantly reduced odds of achieving SCB. The only factor significantly associated with failing to reach the PASS was workers' compensation status.

CONCLUSION

This study established values for the MCID, SCB, and PASS after BT without concomitant rotator cuff repair. Workers' compensation status, previous shoulder surgery, male sex, and higher preoperative patient-reported outcome measure scores are associated with lower odds of achieving clinically significant improvement after BT.

Rates and Risk Factors for Revision Open and Arthroscopic Proximal Biceps Tenodesis

Background:

Biceps tenodesis may be performed for symptomatic tendinopathy or tearing of the long head of the biceps tendon. Biceps tenodesis is also commonly performed as an adjunctive procedure. However, the indications and prevalence of biceps tenodesis have expanded.

Purpose:

To establish the incidence and risk factors for revision biceps tenodesis.

Study Design:

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 2.

Methods:

The PearlDiver database of Humana patient data was queried for patients undergoing arthroscopic or open biceps tenodesis (Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] 29828 and CPT 23430, respectively) from 2008 through the first quarter of 2017. Patients without a CPT laterality modifier were excluded from analysis. Revision biceps tenodesis was defined as patients who underwent subsequent ipsilateral open or arthroscopic biceps tenodesis. The financial impact of revision biceps tenodesis was also calculated. Multivariate binomial logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors for revision biceps tenodesis, such as patient demographics as well as concomitant procedures and diagnoses. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were calculated, and all statistical comparisons with P < .05 were considered significant.

Results:

There were 15,257 patients who underwent biceps tenodesis. Of these, 9274 patients (60.8%) underwent arthroscopic biceps tenodesis, while 5983 (39.2%) underwent open biceps tenodesis. A total of 171 patients (1.8%) and 111 patients (1.9%) required revision biceps tenodesis after arthroscopic and open biceps tenodesis, respectively (P = .5). Male sex (OR, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.04-1.85]; P = .02) was the only independent risk factor for revision biceps tenodesis after the index open biceps tenodesis. After arthroscopic biceps tenodesis, age >45 years (OR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.39-0.89]; P = .01) and concomitant rotator cuff tear (OR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.47-0.71]; P < .001) were independent protective factors for revision biceps tenodesis. The total cost of revision biceps tenodesis after open and arthroscopic biceps tenodesis was US$3427.95 and US$2174.33 per patient, respectively.

Conclusion:

There was no significant difference in the revision rate between arthroscopic and open biceps tenodesis. Risk factors for revision surgery included male sex for open biceps tenodesis, while age >45 years and rotator cuff tears were protective factors for arthroscopic biceps tenodesis.

Patient Preferences for the Treatment of Shoulder and Proximal Biceps Disorders Are Associated With Patient Age, Race, Sex, and Activity Level

Background

Patient preference information has become increasingly more important in clinical decision making.

Purpose

To assess patient preferences when making treatment decisions in the shoulder to determine which features are more important according to patient age, race, activity level, and sex.

Study Design

Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

Study participants aged ≥18 years were surveyed as to their preferences regarding surgical treatment for shoulder and proximal biceps abnormalities. Survey features included time to return to unrestricted activities, time to return to work, size and appearance of scars, the potential for persistent pain in the upper arm or shoulder, fatigue in the biceps with repetitive lifting, potential for muscle cramping, and deformity in the proximal biceps. Participants also completed a validated shoulder activity scale, and demographic data regarding age, race, and sex were collected.

Results

A total of 349 participants (166 female, 183 male) with a mean age of 45 years (range, 18-81 years) completed the survey. Overall, time to return to unrestricted activities and residual pain were considered very important to the majority of the respondents, while the size and appearance of surgical scars were of little importance. Prior shoulder pain (ρ = -0.17; P = .01) and prior shoulder surgery (ρ = -0.16; P = .03) correlated to concern about time to return to unrestricted activities. Younger age (ρ = -0.11; P = .04) and a higher level of education (ρ = 0.14; P = .03) correlated with greater concern for time to return to work. Women and African Americans were more concerned about the size and appearance of surgical scars (ρ = -0.28; P < .0001 and ρ = -0.20; P = .0002, respectively) and biceps deformity. Respondents with a higher activity level (ρ = 0.20; P = .0002) and men (ρ = 0.11; P = .04) were more concerned about fatigue.

Conclusion

Concerns about residual pain, time to return to unrestricted activities, and time away from work are important to patients when considering the treatment for shoulder lesions. Patient preferences are associated with age, sex, race, and shoulder activity level. These features should be considered when discussing treatment options for shoulder and proximal biceps tendon disorders.

Biomechanical Evaluation of a Transtendinous All-Suture Anchor Technique Versus Interference Screw Technique for Suprapectoral Biceps Tenodesis in a Cadaveric Model

PURPOSE

To compare the biomechanical properties of an transtendinous all-suture anchor technique with the commonly-accepted interference screw technique in a cadaveric model.

METHODS

Sixteen fresh-frozen human cadaveric shoulders (mean age, 67.6 ± 5.8 years) were used and were randomly divided into 2 experimental long head of the biceps brachii (LHB) tenodesis groups (n = 8), namely transtendinous all-suture anchor technique and interference screw technique. The location of tenodesis was in the bicipital groove, 1 cm distal to the proximal border of the bicipital groove. Tensile force parallel to the longitudinal axis of the humerus was applied to each specimen. A preload of 5 N was applied for 2 minutes, followed by cyclic loading for 500 cycles from 5 to 70 N at 1 Hz; then, a load-to-failure test at 1 mm/s was performed. The ultimate failure load, stiffness, cyclic displacement, failure displacement, and failure modes were recorded.

RESULTS

The transtendinous all-suture anchor technique provided similar ultimate failure load and stiffness as the interference screw technique. However, the cyclic and failure displacements of the transtendinous all-suture anchor technique were significantly greater than the interference screw technique (P = .009 and .021, respectively). Six specimens in the transtendinous all-suture anchor group failed because of suture anchor pullout, while failure of the other 2 was caused by tendon tear; by contrast, all specimens in the interference screw group failed because of tendon tear.

CONCLUSIONS

The transtendinous all-suture anchor technique for LHB tenodesis offered equivalent ultimate failure load and stiffness but had significantly larger cyclic and failure displacement values when compared with the interference screw technique in this cadaveric biomechanical study.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The transtendinous all-suture anchor technique is an alternative technique for suprapectoral LHB tenodesis; however, care should be taken because only time zero biomechanical data are available.

Long Head of Biceps Tendon Management: a Survey of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons

BACKGROUND

Management of symptomatic long head of biceps tendon (LHBT) pathology remains a source of debate.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

The purpose of this study was to identify consensus trends for the treatment of LHBT pathology among specialists.

METHODS

A survey was distributed to members of the American Shoulder and Elbow Society (ASES), consisting of three sections-demographics, case scenarios, and general LHBT pathology management. Cases presented common clinical scenarios, and surgeons reported their management preferences. Consensus responses were defined as > 50% of participants giving a single response.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-two of 417 (34%) surgeons completed surveys. Forty-seven percent of questions reached a consensus answer. Biceps tenodesis was the overwhelmingly preferred technique in cases demonstrating LHBT pathology, as compared to tenotomy. No consensus, however, was reached regarding a specific surgical technique for biceps tenodesis. The two most popular techniques were arthroscopic tenodesis to bone and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Fellowship-trained arthroscopic surgeons and surgeons with a largely arthroscopic practice were more likely to perform tenodesis arthroscopically.

CONCLUSION

ASES members favored biceps tenodesis over tenotomy for surgical management of LHBT pathology, without consensus regarding a specific surgical technique.

Comparison of Clinical Failure Rates After 2 Techniques of Subpectoral Mini-Open Biceps Tenodesis: Sequence and Suture Passage Technique Matter

Background:

A number of techniques are available for performing biceps tenodesis, the majority of which result in good or excellent outcomes. However, failure may result in pain and/or dissatisfying biceps deformity.

Purpose:

To compare the clinical failure rates of 2 methods of suture passage in subpectoral biceps tenodesis with suture anchors performed by the senior author.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients who underwent biceps tenodesis under the care of the senior author. Operative notes were used to determine whether the procedure was performed with a BirdBeak (BB) suture passer or a free needle (FN). Each subsequent clinical follow-up note was used to determine participation in physical therapy and duration, follow-up duration, and whether clinical tenodesis failure had occurred. Biceps tenodesis failure was defined as either cosmetic deformity (“Popeye” sign), pain at the tenodesis site, or need for revision.

Results:

Overall, 163 patients met the inclusion criteria (BB, n = 112; FN, n = 51). Mean follow-up was 5.3 months and 4.1 months in the BB and FN groups, respectively. Significantly more tenodesis failures occurred in the BB group (BB, 12%; FN, 2%, P = .042). Among all BB patients, 10% experienced failure due to cosmetic deformity, 2% required revision, and 4% had postoperative pain at the tenodesis site by latest follow-up. The 1 patient in the FN group who experienced failure presented with cosmetic deformity postoperatively.

Conclusion:

Biceps tenodesis with the use of an FN to pass the suture resulted in a significantly lower clinical failure rate compared with the use of a BB suture passer.

Arthroscopic Transtendinous Biceps Tenodesis With All-Suture Anchor

There are several methods for long head of the biceps (LHB) tenodesis, yet the optimal option is still debatable. Here we introduce a technique for arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis with an all-suture anchor, the transtendinous biceps tenodesis technique. The LHB tenodesis is performed by using the Y-Knot anchor (1.3-mm). A standard suprapectoral approach is used for the tenodesis. A 1.3-mm drill bit is used to drill through the midportion of the biceps tendon and underlying bone to make a pilot hole. Next, the Y-Knot anchor is passed through the tendon and anchored on the underlying bone. A wrapping suture technique is then used to wrap around, tension, and secure the LHB tendon with the aid of a shuttling polydioxanone suture. The construct is fixed by tying down both suture limbs in a nonsliding fashion. This Technical Note describes an alternative method for all-arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis using an all-suture anchor with a small diameter to minimize trauma to the tendon.

Rotator Cuff-Sparing Approach for Antegrade Humeral Nailing With Biceps Tenodesis: A Technical Trick With Clinical Implications

Antegrade intramedullary nails are an established, effective method of fixation for humeral shaft fractures. One significant limitation of this technique is chronic postoperative shoulder pain, which is likely related to the standard approach that involves splitting the rotator cuff to gain access to the nail starting point. Furthermore, mounting evidence suggests that both the intra-articular portion of the biceps tendon and the extra-articular portion in the bicipital groove can scar down after trauma, causing pain and limiting shoulder range of motion. We describe an approach through the rotator interval with tenodesis of the biceps tendon and resection of the intra-articular portion. Using a rotator cuff interval instead of a rotator cuff insertion approach allows access to the optimal humeral nail starting point while avoiding damage to intra-articular structures of the shoulder, potentially decreasing sources of postoperative shoulder pain.

Tenotomy or tenodesis for pathology of the long head of the biceps brachii: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The objective of this meta-analysis is to compare clinical outcomes of tenotomy and tenodesis in the surgical treatment of long head of the biceps brachii (LHB).

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in Embase and PubMed from 2000 to April 2014. All studies comparing the clinical outcomes between LHB tenotomy and tenodesis were included. The quality assessment was done by utilizing the Coleman score. We included nine studies comprising 650 patients undergoing LHB tenotomy or tenodesis, mostly with concomitant shoulder pathology.

RESULTS

No significant difference in post-operative Constant score (mean difference 1.77), elbow flexion strength (mean difference 0), and forearm supination strength (mean difference 0.01) in favour of tenodesis was observed. A Popeye deformity (odds ratio 0.17) and cramping pain (odds ratio 0.38) in the bicipital groove muscle were less frequently seen in patients treated with tenodesis. The Coleman score ranged between 45 and 100 in the included studies.

CONCLUSION

Based on this meta-analysis, no differences in post-operative functional outcome between tenotomy and tenodesis for the treatment of LHB lesions were observed. A Popeye deformity and cramping pain in the bicipital groove are more frequently observed in patients treated with tenotomy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Comparison of Ultrasound-Guided to Fluoroscopy-Guided Biceps Tendon Sheath Therapeutic Injection

OBJECTIVES

Biceps tendinitis is a source of anterior shoulder pain and is amenable to therapeutic injection. Studies have shown greater accuracy with image-guided compared to unguided injection of the biceps tendon sheath. There is no literature comparing ultrasound-guided to fluoroscopy-guided biceps tendon sheath injection. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes, complication rates, procedure success rates, and financial costs of the two imaging-guided methods.

METHODS

A 10-year retrospective review of the picture archiving and communication system was performed to identify patients who underwent image-guided proximal biceps tendon sheath injection. Two radiologists reviewed the picture archiving and communication system and clinical notes to record pain relief, complications, fluoroscopy time, first-pass success rate (defined as injection into the sheath on the first needle pass), final success rate (needle placement in the tendon sheath on the final needle pass), and average costs.

RESULTS

Fifty fluoroscopy-guided and 53 ultrasound-guided cases were identified. There was no statistically significant difference in pain relief or complications. The first-pass success rate was 90.6% for ultrasound compared to 74.0% for fluoroscopy. The final-pass success rate was 98.2% for ultrasound versus 92.0% for fluoroscopy. The mean fluoroscopy time was 57.6 seconds. Ultrasound showed preinjection abnormalities of the biceps tendon in 47.5% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to fluoroscopy-guided biceps tendon sheath injection, ultrasound had higher initial- and final-pass success rates, visualized abnormalities before injection, and had similar pain relief and complication rates. Ultrasound is more accurate and has greater diagnostic benefits than unguided or fluoroscopy-guided biceps tendon sheath injection.

Outcomes following long head of biceps tendon tenodesis

Lesions of the proximal long head of the biceps tendon (LHB) have been considered as a major cause of shoulder pain and dysfunction. The role of the LHB in causing pain has been a source of controversy for many years, and extensive literature is available discussing anatomy, function, pathology, and most importantly appropriate treatment. Despite this, there is a lack of consensus in the literature regarding the management of biceps-related pathology. Biceps tenotomy and tenodesis are common surgical treatment options when dealing with LHB-related pathology. In this review, a brief discussion on surgical options is provided while focusing on the different options for biceps tenodesis including outcomes and complications.

Risk Factors, Pathobiomechanics and Physical Examination of Rotator Cuff Tears

Background:

It is important to appreciate the risk factors for the development of rotator cuff tears and specific physical examination maneuvers.

Methods:

A selective literature search was performed.

Results:

Numerous well-designed studies have demonstrated that common risk factors include age, occupation, and anatomic considerations such as the critical shoulder angle. Recently, research has also reported a genetic component as well. The rotator cuff axially compresses the humeral head in the glenohumeral joint and provides rotational motion and abduction. Forces are grouped into coronal and axial force couples. Rotator cuff tears are thought to occur when the force couples become imbalanced.

Conclusion:

Physical examination is essential to determining whether a patient has an anterosuperior or posterosuperior tear. Diagnostic accuracy increases when combining a series of examination maneuvers.

Open Subpectoral Tenodesis of the Proximal Biceps

This article summarizes both the various techniques for an open subpectoral biceps tenodesis as well as the biomechanics associated with these procedures. It provides information regarding the indications and contraindications to support the surgeon's decision. Furthermore, a postoperative protocol as well as an outcome overview is presented to address postoperative care. A short summary of the recent literature regarding potential complications is included to provide further insight on this technique. The open subpectoral tenodesis of the long head of the biceps is a safe and reproducible technique with a low complication rate for patients with pathologies of the proximal biceps.