Outcomes following long head of biceps tendon tenodesis

Biomechanical comparisons of all--suture suspensory button vs. interference screw for inlay subpectoral bicep tenodesis

BACKGROUND

All-suture buttons (ASBs) and interference screw (IS) are commonly utilized in the inlay subpectoral biceps tendon tenodesis. However, the biomechanical characteristics of these two methods have not been compared directly. The aim of present study was to compare the biomechanical properties of ASB vs. IS for inlay subpectoral biceps tendon tenodesis in a human cadaveric model.

METHODS

Sixteen fresh-frozen human cadaveric shoulders were randomly divided into two experimental inlay biceps tenodesis groups: ASB or IS. After tenodesis, every specimen was preloaded at 5 N for 2 minutes, followed with a cyclic loading test from 5 to 70 N for 500 load cycles. Then the load-to-failure test was performed. Afterward, the humerus was placed in a cylinder tube and secured with anchoring cement. Lastly, a two-point bending test was performed to determine the strength of the humerus. Destructive axial force was applied, and the failure strength and displacement were recorded.

RESULTS

No difference in stiffness was observed between the two groups (ASB = 27.4 ± 3.5 N/mm vs. IS = 29.7 ± 3.0 N/mm; P = .270). Cyclic displacement was significantly greater in the ASB group (6.8 ± 2.6 mm) than the IS group (3.8 ± 1.1 mm; P = .021). In terms of failure load, there were no statistical differences among the two groups (P = .234). The ASB group was able to withstand significantly greater displacement (11.9 ± 1.6 mm) before failure than the IS group (7.8 ± 1.5 mm; P = .001). During the humeral bending test, the ASB group exhibited significantly greater maximal load (2354.8 ± 285.1 N vs. 2086.4 ± 296.1 N; P = .046) and larger displacement (17.8 ± 2.8 mm vs. 14.1 ± 2.8 mm; P = .027) before fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

In inlay subpectoral bicep tenodesis, ASB fixation appears to offer comparable stiffness and failure load to that of IS fixation. Additionally, the ASB group exhibited greater resistance to load and displacement before humeral fracture. However, the ASB group did demonstrate increased cyclic displacement compared to IS group.

Open Subpectoral Tenodesis for Isolated Traumatic Long Head of Biceps Tendon Rupture Provides Excellent Functional Outcomes in Active Male Patients

Background: For many years the long head of biceps tendon (LHBT) rupture has been described and is commonly identified by weakness, cramping, and the so-called "Popeye" sign. Traditionally, this was treated non-operatively, likely reflecting patient factors and the technical difficulty in reattaching a degenerative and shortened tendon. In contrast, traumatic distal biceps rupture is now commonly repaired despite historically being managed non-operatively. The advent of a convenient and reproducible surgical technique led to an increase in the rate of fixation, thereby improving the cramping and weakness associated with non-operative treatment. Given recent surgical advances within this field, many techniques are now present for LHBT pathology. We describe results from a cohort of patients suffering traumatic LHBT rupture who sought a surgical solution to improve their symptoms.

Methods: Over four years, 18 male patients underwent surgical intervention for isolated traumatic LHBT rupture. The technique used involved an open subpectoral tenodesis with fixation of the LHBT into the bicipital groove. Postoperative immobilization using a sling was recommended for six weeks prior to a progressive rehabilitation program. Patients were assessed with pre- and postoperative visual analog scores (VAS) for pain and American Shoulder and Elbow Society (ASES) scores.

Results: The mean patient age at the time of surgery was 49 years (range: 26-65 years). The mean time to surgery was nine weeks (range: 2-24 weeks). All patients showed an improvement following surgery with a mean pre-op ASES score of 33 (range: 10-60) compared to a post-op score of 92.6 (range: 85-100). All patients were able to return to work and sport, with all but one returning to the same functional demand level of work. The mean pre-op pain VAS was 6.3 (out of 10) compared to 0.2 post-op. All patients had a requirement for analgesia pre-operatively and none had postoperatively. No surgical complications were observed. No correlation was observed between the time to surgery and the outcome.

Discussion: LHBT rupture is often treated non-operatively as few studies within the literature describe the surgical technique and outcomes from surgical intervention. When treated non-operatively, patients complain of pain, cramping, and cosmetic deformity known as the "Popeye" sign. Following a traumatic rupture of the LHBT, we have demonstrated excellent outcomes using a standard approach and common fixation technique that has the potential to improve the functional outcome for symptomatic patients.

Conclusion: Open subpectoral biceps tenodesis is associated with excellent outcomes in symptomatic patients following isolated LHBT rupture.

Simple Soft Tissue Biceps Tenodesis

This article describes a simple all soft tissue technique for arthroscopic long head of the biceps tenodesis to the subscapularis tendon using posterior and anterior portals. The technique uses a PDS suture that assists in passing a braided suture through both the biceps tendon and the subscapularis to allow for the desired tenodesis. This technique is simple, safe, efficient, and less costly than other techniques.

[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.

Transfer of the Long Head Biceps Tendon to Conjoined Tendon in Proximal Humerus Fractures with Cleavage or Comminution at the Bicipital Groove

Objective

To evaluate the clinical and radiographic findings of long head biceps tendon (LHBT) transfer in traumatic proximal humeral fractures with the biceps groove breakage or comminution.

Methods

In this interventional study, subjects surveyed in terms of shoulder function, clinical signs of LHBT tendinitis, radiographic signs of transferred biceps as a possible depressor of the shoulder, and mechanical changes of the scapula. Data were analyzed in SPSS version 21.

Results

Fifteen patients were included in the case group (tendon transfer to the conjoined tendon), and 10 patients were evaluated in the control group (non-transfer or non-manipulation of the exposed tendon in the fracture callus of biceps groove). The mean age of the study population was 46.56±14.31 years, and the majority of patients (14.56%) were men. The differences between two groups were not significant in terms of the American Society of Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) score, and constant shoulder score (CSS) (p=0.535, p=0.419, and p=0.266, respectively). Also, there was no significant differences between the case and control groups regarding the biceps muscle involvement (Popeye sign: p=1.00; tenderness: p=0.477; pain: p=1.00; speed test: p=1.00; Yergason's test: p=1.00).

Conclusion

LHBT transfer to the conjoined tendon in proximal humerus fractures with cleavage or comminution at the bicipital groove showed no advantages.

Clinical outcome comparison of suprapectoral and subpectoral tenodesis of the long head of the biceps with concomitant rotator cuff repair: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Simultaneous repairs of rotator cuff and biceps tenodesis can be managed by tenodesis of long head of biceps tendon to a subpectoral or suprapectoral area. This review investigated long head of biceps tendon tenodesis with concomitant rotator cuff repair and evaluated the clinical outcomes and incidences of complications based on tenodesis location.

METHODS

Medline, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched for published, randomized or nonrandomized controlled studies and prospective or retrospective case series with the phrases "suprapectoral," "subpectoral," "tenodesis," and "long head of biceps tendon". Those with a clinical evidence Level IV or higher were included. Non-English manuscripts, review articles, commentaries, letters, case reports, and sole long head of biceps tendon tenodesis articles were excluded.

RESULTS

From 481 studies, 13 were chosen. In total, 1194 subpectoral and 2520 suprapectoral tenodesis cases were investigated. Postoperative Constant-Murley and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons mean scores showed similar good results. In terms of complication incidences, while transient nerve injuries were more commonly seen in patients with subpectoral tenodesis, persistent bicipital pain and Popeye deformity are mostly seen in patients with suprapectoral tenodesis.

DISCUSSION

Biceps tenodesis to suprapectoral or subpectoral area with concomitant rotator cuff repair demonstrated similar outcomes. Popeye deformity and persistent bicipital pain were higher in suprapectoral area and transient neuropraxia was found to be higher in subpectoral area.Level of evidence: IV.

Incidence of avascular necrosis following biceps tenodesis during proximal humerus open reduction and internal fixation

Avascular necrosis (AVN) may occur in up to 77% of proximal humeral fractures and can cause fixation failure. Risk factors include fracture position, calcar length and medial hinge integrity. We routinely perform intra-articular biceps tenotomy with tenodesis at the level of pectoralis major to facilitate fragment identification and potentially ameliorate post-operative pain relief. Concern exists that tenotomising the biceps damages the adjacent arcuate artery, potentially increasing the rate of AVN. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether biceps tenodesis is associated with an increased risk of radiographically evident humeral head AVN. 61 fractures surgically treated over a 52-month period were retrospectively reviewed and radiographically assessed in accordance with Neer’s classification, calcar-length and medial hinge integrity. 40, 20 and 1 were four-, three- and two-part fractures respectively. 37 had a calcar-length less than 8mm and 26 suffered loss of the medial hinge. The median radiographic follow-up was 23 months. There was radiographic evidence of humeral head AVN in only one case, comparing favourably to rates quoted in current literature. In our experience, intra-articular biceps tenotomy with the deltopectoral approach was thus not associated with a significantly increased risk of humeral head AVN, even in complex four-part fractures.

A meta-analysis of level I evidence comparing tenotomy vs tenodesis in the management of long head of biceps pathology

BACKGROUND

The ideal surgical treatment of long head of biceps pathology is unclear. This review evaluates Level I studies comparing tenotomy and tenodesis for the management of long head of biceps pathology.

METHODS

Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from database inception though April 17, 2020. Clinical outcomes including Constant-Murley Shoulder Outcome Score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) shoulder score, pain on visual analog scale, postoperative strength, and Popeye deformity were evaluated. Dichotomous outcomes were pooled into relative risk ratios whereas continuous outcomes were pooled into weighted mean differences using random effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 5 studies (227 tenotomy and 227 tenodesis patients) met the final inclusion criteria. Postoperative improvement across all outcomes was observed regardless of surgical treatment. Pooled analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference for Constant-Murley Shoulder Outcome Score, ASES, pain, or flexion strength. Tenodesis was superior to tenotomy in reducing the risk of Popeye deformity (relative risk ratio 3.07, confidence interval 1.87, 5.02; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Tenotomy and tenodesis of the long head of the biceps results in comparable postoperative clinical and functional outcomes. Tenodesis is superior to tenotomy in preventing Popeye deformity postoperatively.

Patient-Reported Outcomes of Shoulder Surgery in a Community Orthopedic Practice: A 5-Year Quality Improvement Project Using the QuickDASH Questionnaire

There has been a shift in US health care to a system that emphasizes value. Patient-reported outcomes have become a critical component of that valuation. A 5-year quality improvement project at the community private practice level was undertaken to assess the authors' delivery of care and practice processes for shoulder surgery as compared with established standards. QuickDASH questionnaires were collected from 1304 consecutive shoulder surgery patients, and data were collected at 4 time points. Mean QuickDASH scores for each procedure and scores assessing biceps tenodesis, distal clavicle excision, workers' compensation status, and sex were analyzed for statistical significance. Rotator cuff repair patients who also underwent biceps tenodesis had statistically significant worse function preoperatively and at 3 and 6 months postoperatively but not at 1 year postoperatively (P<.05). Rotator cuff repair patients undergoing concomitant distal clavicle excision had statistically significantly higher pre-operative scores (P<.01). Male shoulder arthroplasty patients had statistically significant higher preoperative scores (P<.02). Non-workers' compensation patients had statistically significant higher scores at 1 year (P<.05), whereas workers' compensation patients were statistically significantly younger (P<.01). Maximum changes in scores that met minimal clinically important differences occurred between surgery and 6 months postoperatively in all procedures. Quality outcome studies can be performed in private practice by a single surgeon and yield helpful results that lead to quality improvement through practice and delivery of care processes. [Orthopedics. 2020;43(5):e383-e388.].

Outcomes and Complications After Primary Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Versus Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis for Superior Labral Anterior-Posterior Tears or Biceps Abnormalities: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background:

Biceps tenodesis is a surgical treatment for both superior labral anterior-posterior (SLAP) tears and long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) abnormalities. Biceps tenodesis can be performed either above or below the pectoralis major tendon with arthroscopic or open techniques.

Purpose:

To analyze the outcomes and complications comparing primary arthroscopic suprapectoral versus open subpectoral biceps tenodesis for either SLAP tears or LHBT disorders.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

A search strategy based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Meta-Analyses) protocol was used to include 18 articles (471 patients) from a total of 974 articles identified. Overall exclusion criteria included the following: non–English language, non–full text, biceps tenodesis with concomitant rotator cuff repair, review articles, meta-analyses, and case reports. Data were extracted and analyzed according to procedure type and tenodesis location: arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (295 patients) versus open subpectoral bicepts tenodesis (176 patients).

Results:

For arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis, the weighted mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score was 90.0 (97 patients) and the weighted mean Constant score was 88.7 (108 patients); for open subpectoral biceps tenodesis, the mean ASES score was 91.1 (199 patients) and mean Constant score was 84.7 (65 patients). Among the 176 patients who underwent arthroscopic biceps tenodesis, there was an overall complication rate of 9.1%. Among the 295 patients who underwent open biceps tenodesis, there was an overall complication rate of 13.5%. Both residual pain (5.7% vs 4.7%, respectively) and Popeye deformity (1.7% vs 1.0%, respectively) rates were similar between the groups. Open subpectoral biceps tenodesis had higher reoperation (3.0% vs 0.0%, respectively), wound complication (1.0% vs 0.0%, respectively), and nerve injury (0.7% vs 0.0%, respectively) rates postoperatively. A meta-analysis of 3 studies demonstrated that both methods had similar ASES scores (P = .36) as well as all-cause complication rates (odds ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.13-4.48]; P = .26).

Conclusion:

Patients undergoing arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis for either SLAP tears or LHBT abnormalities had similar outcome scores and complication rates compared with those undergoing open subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Additionally, both residual pain and Popeye deformity rates were similar between the 2 groups.

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.

Arthroscopic Onlay Articular Margin Biceps Tenodesis for Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Pathology

The long head of the biceps (LHB) tendon is a common source of shoulder pain. LHB tendon pathology typically occurs with concomitant rotator cuff or labrum injuries but can occasionally occur in isolation as biceps tendinopathy or rupture. Tenodesis has been increasingly used to treat LHB tendon pathology, and numerous techniques have been developed that vary in approach, fixation construct, and fixation location. In this Technical Note, we describe an arthroscopic onlay articular margin biceps tenodesis with suture anchors. This technique has several advantages, namely intra-articular visualization of the tenodesis, strong fixation to high density bone of the articular margin, and most importantly, preservation of the anatomic length-tension relationship.

Relationship between the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computer adaptive testing and legacy instruments in patients undergoing isolated biceps tenodesis

HYPOTHESIS

The purpose of this study was to correlate the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computer adaptive testing (CAT) domains with commonly used legacy patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) preoperatively in a population of patients presenting to a tertiary care orthopedic center for biceps and labral pathology.

METHODS

Prospective data were collected on 175 patients scheduled to undergo isolated biceps tenodesis at a tertiary center. Enrollees completed legacy scores (Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey, Short Form 12, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES] Assessment Form, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and Constant-Murley score) and PROMIS CAT questionnaires (Upper Extremity [UE], Pain Interference [PIF], and Depression). In addition, patients were asked to provide an assessment of the strength, function, and pain of the affected shoulder using a custom visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaire. Spearman rank correlations of the PROMIS CAT with legacy measures and the custom VAS were calculated. Floor and ceiling effects were assessed.

RESULTS

The UE CAT yielded moderate correlations with the ASES score (r = 0.57) and the custom VAS strength score (r = 0.50-0.57). The PIF CAT demonstrated moderate correlations with the VAS pain score (r = 0.45) and high-moderate correlations with the ASES score, VR6D score, and UE CAT (r = 0.61-0.66). The Depression CAT demonstrated high-moderate correlations with the mental health legacy measures (r = -0.64 to -0.61). There was a significant relative floor effect for the Depression CAT at a score of 34.2 (19%).

CONCLUSION

The PIF CAT was comparable to the ASES score, the current gold standard. Compared with legacy measures, both the UE CAT and PIF CAT are less burdensome and have few floor or ceiling effects. The PIF CAT may be a viable alternative to describe the physical and psychosocial impact of pain in biceps tenodesis patients.

Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction

Background

Biceps tenotomy and tenodesis are surgical treatments for pathology of the proximal tendon of the long head of the biceps. There is debate over which procedure provides better patient outcomes.

Purpose

Compare patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction between biceps tenotomy and tenodesis.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study including all patients undergoing arthroscopic biceps tenodesis or tenotomy as part of more extensive shoulder surgery with a single surgeon. Concomitant procedures included rotator cuff repair, subacromial decompression, acromioclavicular joint resection, and debridement. Patients 36–81 years old were contacted by phone at > 2-year post-operatively to complete a biceps-specific outcome questionnaire. Subject decision not to participate was the sole exclusion criterion. Satisfaction scores and frequencies of potential biceps-related downsides (biceps cramping/spasms, biceps pain, shoulder pain, weakness, cosmetic deformity) were analyzed for the effects of procedure, sex, and age.

Results

Satisfaction score distributions were similar between patients with tenodesis and patients with tenotomy (χ² = 8.34, P = 0.08), although slightly more patients with tenodesis than patients with tenotomy reported being satisfied or very satisfied (96% versus 91%). Perceived downsides occurred more frequently among patients with tenotomy than in patients with tenodesis: 59% of patients with tenotomy reported ≥ 1 downside, versus 37% of patients with tenodesis (P < 0.01). In patients reporting ≥ 1 downside, distributions of total downsides differed between procedures (χ² = 10.04, P = 0.04): patients with tenotomy were more likely to report multiple concurrent downsides than were patients with tenodesis (31% versus 16%). Each individual downside tended to be reported as present by a greater proportion of patients with tenotomy than patients with tenodesis. Sex had no effect on satisfaction or downsides, but there was a trend for older patients to report higher satisfaction and fewer downsides.

Conclusions

Biceps tenotomy and tenodesis are both viable treatments for proximal biceps tendon pathology, yielding high patient satisfaction. There were trends toward greater satisfaction and fewer problems in patients with tenodesis. Still, younger patients with tenodesis did report perceived downsides. Alternatively, older patients tended to be more satisfied with both procedures overall. Regardless of procedure, most patients receiving either tenotomy or tenodesis would undergo their respective surgery again.

Level of Evidence

Level III evidence, retrospective comparative cohort study

Open subpectoral vs. arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis: A comparison study of clinical outcomes

The purpose of the present study was to compare the results of open subpectoral biceps tenodesis and arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis for treating long head of biceps (LHB) lesions. From January 2015 to June 2016, a total of 259 patients underwent LHB tenodesis surgery. Among them, 117 patients (60 females and 57 males) who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were enrolled into the present study and were randomly divided into two groups, including an open subpectoral tenodesis group (OSPBT; n=62) and an arthroscopic proximal tenodesis group (ASPBT; n=55). All patients were followed up for at least 12 months. The demographic characteristics of each patient were recorded in detail. Moreover, clinical examinations of LHB lesions, such as shoulder range of motion (ROM), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores (0, no pain, to 10, most severe pain), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, and Constant-Murley shoulder outcome scores, were investigated prior to surgery, as well as 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. Postoperative complications were also comprehensively investigated. There were no significant differences in sex, body mass index, dominant shoulder, duration of pain, injury type and operation time between the groups. The mean length of hospital stay in the ASPBT group was significantly lower than that of the OSPBT group (5.4±1.8 days vs. 9.3±2.9 days; P<0.05). The clinical outcomes, including shoulder ROMs, VAS scores, ASES scores and Constant-Murley shoulder outcome scores, were significantly improved after either OSPBT or ASPBT treatment. Specifically, the VAS score, incidence of postoperative stiffness and bicipital groove tenderness in the OSPBT group were significantly lower than those in the ASPBT group at 3 months post-surgery (P<0.05). Additionally, there were no significant difference in the improvement of other clinical outcomes and postoperative complications between the two groups. ASPBT and OSPBT were both effective and safe techniques for treating LHB lesions. However, tenderness of the bicipital groove was more common in the early stages of recovery post-surgery in the ASPBT group, which may be related to tendinitis of the LHB in the bicipital groove.

Case-control comparison of "in-the-groove" and lateral-row arthroscopic biceps tenodesis with concomitant rotator cuff repair

Background

Lateral-row (LR) arthroscopic biceps tenodesis (BT) has been described as a technique using an LR rotator cuff repair (RCR) anchor for biceps fixation. This technique has not been compared with other BT techniques. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing a suprapectoral "in-the-groove" arthroscopic BT and patients treated with an LR tenodesis performed in conjunction with arthroscopic RCR.

Methods

Patients undergoing arthroscopic BT in the setting of an arthroscopic RCR were evaluated preoperatively and at a minimum of 12 months' follow-up. Patients who underwent an in-the-groove BT were matched 1:1 to patients who underwent an LR BT based on age at surgery and size of the rotator cuff tear using the Patte classification. Comparisons made included age, sex, body mass index, patient-reported outcome measures, range of motion, and patient satisfaction.

Results

There were 82 patients (41 in each group) who met the inclusion criteria, with an average follow-up period of 33 months and average age of 61 years. By use of the Patte classification, there were 20 matched pairs with stage 1 tears, 11 matched pairs with stage 2 tears, and 10 matched pairs with stage 3 tears. Comparisons of the 2 cohorts revealed no differences in preoperative or postoperative motion, patient-reported outcome measures, or patient satisfaction. Furthermore, no differences were found in overall improvements in motion or outcome measures, as well as overall satisfaction.

Conclusions

Patients undergoing simultaneous RCR and BT demonstrate similar patient-reported and objective outcomes for both LR tenodesis and in-the-groove tenodesis techniques.

Predictive Factors and the Duration to Pre-Injury Work Status Following Biceps Tenodesis

PURPOSE

To determine when patients return to work after biceps tenodesis stratified by the preinjury level of work-intensity and to identify predictive measures of return to work.

METHODS

Patients undergoing biceps tenodesis between 2014 and 2017 were reviewed. Patients receiving concomitant rotator cuff repair or arthroplasty, revision biceps tenodesis, or unemployment before the procedure were excluded. Patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS), substantial clinical benefit, and minimal clinically important difference were calculated for the American Shoulder Elbow Society (ASES) score, subjective Constant-Murley score (CMS), and Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE) using the anchor-based and distribution-based approach. Preoperative outcome scores were analyzed to determine their predictive power of return to work using receiver operator curve area under the curve (AUC) analysis. Multivariate logistical analysis assessed predictive variables of return to work.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine percent of patients were able to return to work without permanent restrictions at an average of 5.4 ± 2.8 months after biceps tenodesis. Return to work status for sedentary, light, moderate, and heavy duties were 100%, 85%, 71%, and 69%, respectively. Return to work was associated with achieving PASS for the ASES and SANE questionnaires (P = .006, .003, respectively) but not for the CMS (P = .768). On multivariate analysis, there were no preoperative or intraoperative variables that were predictive of return to work in full capacity. The preoperative Short Form-12 mental component score (>59.4, AUC = 71.2%) was predictive of returning to work.

CONCLUSIONS

After biceps tenodesis, most patients were able to return to work at an average of 5.4 ± 2.8 months. Furthermore, there were no demographic or intraoperative variables that were predictive of return to work. Work intensity was not correlated with an increased duration of return to work. Achieving PASS on the ASES and SANE questionnaires was predictive of return to work.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series.

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.