Arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis at the articular margin: evaluation of outcomes, complications, and revision rate

No clinical difference in outcomes between inlay and onlay arthroscopic biceps tenodesis techniques during rotator cuff repair

BACKGROUND

Both inlay and onlay arthroscopic biceps tenodesis (ABT) are common procedures performed during rotator cuff repair. The inlay method involves creating a bone socket in the bicipital groove to secure the long head of the biceps tendon using an interference screw. The onlay method utilizes a suture anchor to secure the long head of the biceps tendon on the surface of the bicipital groove. Little is known on the long-term differences in patient-reported outcomes between these 2 techniques. The primary purpose of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes of inlay vs. onlay ABT with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Secondary aims were to evaluate the impact of rotator cuff tear size on outcomes and compare rates of complications between the 2 techniques.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed to identify patients who had an ABT during a full-thickness rotator cuff repair. Any symptom specific to the biceps were noted, including pain and cramping, Popeye deformity, or revision surgery. Complication rates were compared between groups. The visual analog scale pain score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and Veteran's RAND-12 score (VR-12) scores were compared at 2 years. The impact of rotator cuff tear size was analyzed by categorizing into small/medium or large/massive based on operative reports and arthroscopic images.

RESULTS

There were 165 patients identified (106 in the inlay group and 59 in the onlay group). No revision surgeries were performed secondary to the biceps tendon in either group. Eleven patients (10%) in the inlay group complained of biceps pain or cramping compared to 2 patients (3%) in the onlay group (P = .11). One Popeye deformity was noted in each group (P = .67). No significant differences were found between groups for visual analog scale (P = .41), ASES functional (P = .61), ASES index (P = .91), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (P = .09), VR-12 Physical Component Score (P = .77), or VR-12 Mental Component Score (P = .09). Rotator cuff tear size within the groups also did not demonstrate statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

No clinical differences or complications were found at minimum 2-year follow-up between inlay and onlay ABT in patients undergoing rotator cuff repair when controlling for tear size. The clinical relevance suggests either technique is effective and can be based on surgeon preference.

Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis using press-fit bony plug: a case series study

PURPOSE

To assess the feasibility, operative time, clinical outcomes, possible complications, and failure rates of all-through arthroscopic biceps tenodesis using press-fit bony plug technique.

METHODS

This prospective case series study involved 30 skeletally mature patients with long head of biceps pathology (tendinitis after failure of conservative treatment, subluxation, dislocation, or tendon tears). All patients were followed up for 24 months at least.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients regained full shoulder and elbow range of motion; one case suffered from reflex sympathetic dystrophy. There was a significant improvement in the constant, ASES, and VAS scores when comparing the pre-operative and post-operative values. The average biceps strength was 96% compared to the opposite healthy side. No cases were complicated by neuro-vascular deficits or failure of the tenodesis.

CONCLUSION

Press-fit biceps tenodesis is safe and accessible with low economic demands. We recommend this technique to be used more often when addressing patients with long head of biceps pathologies.

REGISTRATION DATA

Registration number: N-1562023. Registration date: June 2022 "Retrospectively registered".

The management of the long head of the biceps in rotator cuff repair: A comparative study of high vs. subpectoral tenodesis

BACKGROUND

Tenodesis of the long head of the biceps (LHB) is commonly undertaken during arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. We assessed the clinical and structural outcomes after high arthroscopic tenodesis (HAT) or mini-open subpectoral tenodesis (ST). We hypothesized that the clinical and structural results after HAT and ST are similar.

METHODS

We included 40 patients with rotator cuff tear and LHB tendinopathy. Twenty patients (7 women and 13 men; mean age: 57.9 years; range: 56-63 years) were treated using HAT, and 20 patients (8 women and 12 men; mean age: 58.5 years; range: 55-64 years) were treated using ST. Functional evaluation was performed preoperatively and at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year after surgery, using the Constant Murley Score and Simple Shoulder Test scores; the LHB was evaluated using the LHB score. A Visual Analogue Scale was administered to all patients preoperatively and 2 days after surgery.

RESULTS

The postoperative total and pain subscale's Constant scores were significantly higher in the ST group. Moreover, 2 LHB score values were significantly different between the groups. The postoperative LHB total score in the ST and HAT groups averaged 86.9 ± 4.1 (mean ± SD) points and 73.3 ± 6.4 points, respectively. The Pain/Cramps subscale in the ST and HAT groups averaged 47.1 ± 5.9 and 33.2 ± 4.6 points, respectively. The 2 groups showed no difference in Visual Analogue Scale values (5.5 in the HAT group; 5.8 in the ST group) postoperatively. One patient in the HAT group reported a secondary onset of Popeye deformity.

CONCLUSION

Both high arthroscopic and mini-open ST of the LHB tendon produced reliably good functional results, but the ST group was associated with better postoperative clinical outcomes.

Depressive and Anxiety Disorders Increase Risk for Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Pain Following Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Biceps Tenodesis

Purpose

To evaluate factors associated with postoperative anterior shoulder pain following arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (ABT) and to determine the clinical impact of postoperative anterior shoulder pain.

Methods

A retrospective study of patients that underwent ABT between 2016 and 2020 was conducted. Groups were categorized by the presence (ASP+) or absence (ASP-) of postoperative anterior shoulder pain. Patient-reported outcomes (American Shoulder and Elbow score [ASES], visual analog scale [VAS] for pain, subjective shoulder value [SSV]), strength, range of motion, and complication rates were analyzed. Differences between continuous and categorical variables were tested with two-sample t-tests and chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests, respectively. Variables collected at different postoperative timepoints were analyzed using mixed models with post hoc comparisons when significant interactions were detected.

Results

A total of 461 (47 ASP+, 414 ASP-) patients were included. A statistically significant lower mean age was observed in the ASP+ group (P < .001). A statistically significant higher prevalence of major depressive disorder (MDD) (P = .03) or any anxiety disorder (P = .002) was observed in the ASP+ group. Prescription medication with psychotropic medications (P = .01) was significantly more prevalent in the ASP+ group. No significant differences were observed in the proportion of individuals reaching the minimal clinical important difference (MCID) for ASES, VAS, or SSV between groups.

Conclusions

A pre-existing diagnosis of major depressive disorder or any anxiety disorder, as well as the use of psychotropic medications was associated with postoperative anterior shoulder pain following ABT. Other factors associated with anterior shoulder pain included younger age, participation in physical therapy before surgery, and lower rate of concomitant rotator cuff repair or subacromial decompression. Although the proportion of individuals reaching MCID did not differ between groups, the presence of anterior shoulder pain after ABT resulted in prolonged recovery, inferior PROs, and a higher incidence of repeat surgical procedures. The decision to perform ABT in patients diagnosed with MDD or anxiety should be carefully considered, given the correlation to postoperative anterior shoulder pain and inferior outcomes.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective case-control study.

Subpectoral, Suprapectoral, and Top-of-Groove Biceps Tenodesis Procedures Lead to Similar Good Clinical Outcomes: Comparison of Biceps Tenodesis Procedures

Purpose

To determine whether there is a difference in clinical results among open subpectoral (SB), arthroscopic low-in-groove suprapectoral (SP), and arthroscopic top-of-groove (TOG) locations in terms of patient-reported outcome measures for biceps tenodesis (BT) procedures using a global, self-reporting registry.

Methods

We identified patients who underwent BT surgery in the Surgical Outcomes System registry. The inclusion criteria were isolated primary surgical procedures for BT, excluding patients with rotator cuff and labral repairs. Additional search requirements included repair location and 100% compliance with pretreatment and 2-year follow-up surveys. This study measured clinical outcomes comparing the 3 aforementioned techniques using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score before treatment and at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively. In addition, postoperative VAS pain scores were collected at 2 and 6 weeks. Statistical analysis was conducted using analysis of variance (Kruskal-Wallis test) and the Wilcoxon test.

Results

A total of 1,923 patients from the Surgical Outcomes System registry qualified for the study; of these, 879 underwent the SB technique, 354 underwent the SP technique, and 690 underwent the TOG technique. There was no statistically significant difference in the demographic characteristics among the groups except that the TOG group was older: 60.76 years versus 54.56 years in the SB group and 54.90 years in the SP group (P < .001). In all groups, the ASES score statistically improved from before treatment (mean, 49.29 ± 0.63) to 2 years postoperatively (mean, 86.82 ± 0.80; P < .05). There were no statistically significant differences among the 3 groups in the VAS, ASES, and SANE scores at all time points (P > .12) except for the VAS score at 1 year (P = .032) and the ASES score at 3 months (P = .0159). At 1 year, the mean VAS score in the SB group versus the TOG group was 1.146 ± 1.27 versus 1.481 ± 1.62 (P = .032), but the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was not met. The 3-month ASES Index scores in the SB, SP, and TOG groups were 68.991 ± 18.64, 66.499 ± 17.89, and 67.274 ± 16.9, respectively (P = .0159), and similarly, the MCID was not met. At 2 years, the ASES scores in the SB, SP, and TOG groups improved from 49.986 ± 18.68, 49.54 ± 16.86, and 49.697 ± 7.84, respectively, preoperatively to 86.00 ± 18.09, 87.60 ± 17.69, and 86.86 ± 16.36, respectively, postoperatively (P > .12).

Conclusions

The SB, SP, and TOG BT procedures each resulted in excellent clinical improvement based on patient-reported outcome measures from a global registry. On the basis of the MCID, no technique was clinically superior to the other techniques in terms of VAS, ASES, or SANE scores at any time point up to 2 years.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

SLAP repair and bicep tenodesis: a comparison of utilization and revision rates for SLAP tears

Hypothesis

The management of superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) tears typically consists of either repair or biceps tenodesis (BT). While repair is more frequently recommended in younger patients, patients older than 40 years are often treated with BT. The purpose of this study is to determine whether there has been a change in utilization of these procedures over the past decade with respect to patient age as well as compare reoperation rates between the two procedures.

Methods

The Pearldiver database was queried to identify BT and SLAP repairs indicated for SLAP tears performed from 2010 to 2019. The primary outcome was utilization rate, stratified by age. A secondary outcome was 2-year shoulder reoperation rates. Trends were reported in terms of compounded annual growth rate. Outcome analysis was conducted using univariate and multivariable analysis.

Results

From 2010 to 2019, SLAP repair was the most common procedure performed for SLAP tears. Regardless of age, BT performed for SLAP tear had a significantly increased utilization rate; whereas, SLAP repair had a significantly decreased utilization rate. SLAP repair was more commonly performed in younger patients compared to BT. Following multivariable analysis, patients who underwent SLAP repair had significantly higher odds (odds ratio (OR): 1.453; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.26-1.68; P < .001) of requiring an arthroscopic reoperation within 2 years when compared to those who underwent BT with no significant difference with respect to 2-year open reoperation.

Conclusion

Although SLAP repair is still more commonly used to treat SLAP tears than BT, especially for younger patients, the utilization of SLAP repair is decreasing while BT is increasing. The increased utilization of BT may be associated with lower rates of shoulder reoperation for problematic SLAP tears.

Clinical effectiveness of tenotomy versus tenodesis for long head of biceps pathology: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The comparative clinical effectiveness of common surgical techniques to address long head of biceps (LHB) pathology is unclear. We synthesised the evidence to compare the clinical effectiveness of tenotomy versus tenodesis.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

DATA SOURCES

EMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library of randomised controlled trials were searched through 31 October 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials, reporting patient reported outcome measures, comparing LHB tenotomy with tenodesis for LHB pathology, with or without concomitant rotator cuff pathology. Studies including patients treated for superior labral anterior-posterior tears were excluded. No language limits were employed. All publications from database inception to 31 October 2021 were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Screening was performed by two authors independently. A third author reviewed the article, where consensus for inclusion was required. Data were extracted by two authors. Data were synthesised using RevMan. Inverse variance statistics and a random effects model were used.

RESULTS

860 patients from 11 RCTs (426 tenotomy vs 434 tenodesis) were included. Pooled analysis of patient-reported functional outcome measures data demonstrated comparable outcomes (n=10 studies; 403 tenotomy vs 416 tenodesis; standardised mean difference (SMD): 0.14, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.32, p=0.13). There was no significant difference for pain (Visual Analogue Scale) (n=8 studies; 345 tenotomy vs 350 tenodesis; MD: -0.11, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.06, p=0.21). Tenodesis resulted in a lower rate of Popeye deformity (n=10 studies; 401 tenotomy vs 410 tenodesis; OR: 0.29, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.45, p<0.00001). Tenotomy demonstrated shorter operative time (n=4 studies; 204 tenotomy vs 201 tenodesis; MD 15.2, 95% CI 1.06 to 29.36, p<0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

Aside from a lower rate of cosmetic deformity, tenodesis yielded no significant clinical benefit to tenotomy for addressing LHB pathology.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020198658.

Return to Play After Biceps Tenodesis for Isolated SLAP Tears in Overhead Athletes

BACKGROUND

Performing open subpectoral biceps tenodesis in overhead athletes with a superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) tear may affect their ability to return to overhead sports.

PURPOSE

To investigate clinical outcomes in overhead athletes undergoing biceps tenodesis for the treatment of symptomatic, isolated SLAP tears involving the biceps-labral complex.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A retrospective review of overhead athletes who underwent biceps tenodesis for a SLAP tear was performed. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain, subjective shoulder value (SSV), patient satisfaction, willingness to undergo surgery again, revision procedures, and return to play were evaluated. Psychological readiness to return to sport was evaluated using the SLAP-Return to Sport after Injury (SLAP-RSI) score. A P value of <.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

RESULTS

The current study included 44 overhead athletes. The mean age was 34.9 years (range, 16-46 years), 79.5% were male, and the mean follow-up was 49.0 months (range, 18-107 months). Overall, 81.8% of patients returned to play their overhead sport after biceps tenodesis, and 59.1% of patients returned to the same or higher level of play. It took patients, on average, 8.7 months to return to play after biceps tenodesis. The mean SLAP-RSI score was 69.4, and 70.5% of patients passed the SLAP-RSI threshold of 56. The mean ASES score, VAS score, SSV, and satisfaction were 92.0, 0.8, 80.6, and 87.9%, respectively. No patients in our cohort required revision surgery.

CONCLUSION

This study found that athletes undergoing biceps tenodesis for the treatment of a symptomatic, isolated SLAP tear had a high rate of return to play, good functional outcomes, and a low rate of revision surgery.

Failure and Complication Rates in Common Sports and Arthroscopic Procedures: Reality Check

Expectations following sports medicine and arthroscopic procedures have been elevated because of captivating modern-day media coverage of high-profile athletic injuries, surgery, and rapid return to sports. Unfortunately, this general perception may be misleading, and orthopedic sports medicine physicians must be aware of the harsh reality of the trials and tribulations associated with the subspecialty. The purpose of this review article is to provide an updated brief overview of the complications and failure rates associated with common arthroscopic procedures including rotator cuff repair, biceps tenodesis, Bankart procedure, Latarjet procedure, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, anterior cruciate ligament repair, meniscal repair, tibial tubercle osteotomy, and medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction. Highlighting the complications is the first step toward early recognition, enhancing preventative measures, and successful management.

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.

Management of proximal biceps tendon pathology

The long head of the biceps tendon is widely recognized as an important pain generator, especially in anterior shoulder pain and dysfunction with athletes and working individuals. The purpose of this review is to provide a current understanding of the long head of the biceps tendon anatomy and its surrounding structures, function, and relevant clinical information such as evaluation, treatment options, and complications in hopes of helping orthopaedic surgeons counsel their patients. An understanding of the long head of the biceps tendon anatomy and its surrounding structures is helpful to determine normal function as well as pathologic injuries that stem proximally. The biceps-labral complex has been identified and broken down into different regions that can further enhance a physician’s knowledge of common anterior shoulder pain etiologies. Although various physical examination maneuvers exist meant to localize the anterior shoulder pain, the lack of specificity requires orthopaedic surgeons to rely on patient history, advanced imaging, and diagnostic injections in order to determine the patient’s next steps. Nonsurgical treatment options such as anti-inflammatory medications, physical therapy, and ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injections should be utilized before entertaining surgical treatment options. If surgery is needed, the three options include biceps tenotomy, biceps tenodesis, or superior labrum anterior to posterior repair. Specifically for biceps tenodesis, recent studies have analyzed open vs arthroscopic techniques, the ideal location of tenodesis with intra-articular, suprapectoral, subpectoral, extra-articular top of groove, and extra-articular bottom of groove approaches, and the best method of fixation using interference screws, suture anchors, or cortical buttons. Orthopaedic surgeons should be aware of the complications of each procedure and respond accordingly for each patient. Once treated, patients often have good to excellent clinical outcomes and low rates of complications.

The rate and reporting of fracture after biceps tenodesis: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this systematic review was to (1) define the cumulative humerus fracture rate after BT and (2) compare how often fracture rate was reported compared to other complications.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using the PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

39 studies reported complications and 30 reported no complications. Of the 39 studies that reported complications, 5 studies reported fracture after BT (n = 669, cumulative incidence of 0.53%). The overall non-fracture complication rate was 12.9%.

DISCUSSION

Due to the relatively high incidence of fracture, surgeons should ensure that this complication is disclosed to patients undergoing BT.

Short-Term Clinical and Return-to-Work Outcomes After Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Onlay Biceps Tenodesis With a Single Suture Anchor

Purpose

To describe short-term outcomes of arthroscopic suprapectoral onlay biceps tenodesis using a single all-suture anchor with respect to validated outcome measures, return to work, objective strength and motion data, and biceps-specific testing.

Methods

This study describes a consecutive series of patients undergoing arthroscopic suprapectoral onlay biceps tenodesis performed by a single surgeon from January to December 2017. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively with the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons questionnaire, visual analog scale, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey, and 12-Item Short Form survey, and return-to-work survey. Postoperative strength, range of motion, and biceps-specific testing was also performed.

Results

This study included 50 patients (26 men and 24 women), with an average age (± standard deviation) of 50.1 ± 10.9 years and average final follow-up of 21.3 ± 8.5 months. Among employed patients, 32 (71.1%) returned to work at an average of 4.6 ± 2.3 months. Light-duty workers returned to work at a significantly greater rate (85.7% vs 33.3%, P = .016) and in less time (2.6 ± 2.0 months vs 6.8 ± 4.2 months) than heavy-duty workers. No differences were found between operative and nonoperative sides in the biceps apex distance (P = .636) or range of motion in elbow flexion and extension (P > .9 for both), supination (P = .192), or pronation (P = .343) postoperatively. Strength in elbow flexion (P = .002), as well as shoulder forward elevation (P < .001) and external rotation (P < .001), increased postoperatively. Significant patient-reported improvements were noted in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, visual analog scale pain score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, Constant-Murley score, and Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey and 12-Item Short Form physical component scores (P ≤ .001 for all). A postoperative Popeye deformity developed in 5 patients (10%).

Conclusions

Arthroscopic suprapectoral onlay biceps tenodesis with a single all-suture anchor can provide overall excellent clinical outcomes regarding strength, motion, and validated patient-reported outcome questionnaires. Return to occupational activities may be less predictable and more prolonged for heavy laborers. A small number of patients may experience cosmetic deformity postoperatively.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic case series.

The Loop Tenodesis Procedure-From Biomechanics to First Clinical Results

(1) Introduction: Several surgical therapy options for the treatment of pathologies of the long biceps tendon (LHB) have been established. However, tenotomy, as well as established tenodesis techniques, has disadvantages, such as cosmetic deformities, functional impairments and residual shoulder pain. This study presents the first clinical and structural results of the recently introduced loop tenodesis procedure for the LHB, developed to overcome these issues. (2) Methods: 37 patients (11 women, 26 men, mean age 52 years), who underwent loop tenodesis of the LHB were examined six months after surgery. For the clinical evaluation the Constant score, as well as the LHB score, were used, complemented by elbow flexion and supination strength measurements. The integrity of the tenodesis construct was evaluated indirectly by sonographic detection of the LHB in the bicipital groove. (3) Results: Both, the overall Constant score as well as the LHB score showed significant improvements six months postoperatively, as compared to the preoperative value. Fourteen patients (38%) presented an examiner-dependent upper arm deformity, although only five patients (13%) reported subjective cosmetic deformities. Both, flexion and supination strength were preserved compared to the preoperative level. In 35 patients (95%), the tenodesis in the bicipital groove was proofed sonographically. (4) Conclusion: The loop tenodesis of the LHB provides good-to-excellent overall clinical results after a short-term follow-up of six month. The incidence of cosmetic deformities was inferior compared to conventional therapy options (tenotomy and anchor tenodesis).

Proximal Biceps Tenodesis Incorporated into Supraspinatus Repair: A Case Series and Technical Description

Background:

Biceps tendon pathology is commonly associated with rotator cuff tears. A multitude of different biceps tenodesis techniques have been studied, with limited clinical data on arthroscopic biceps tenodesis techniques incorporated into rotator cuff repairs.

Purpose:

To evaluate the outcomes of an arthroscopic biceps tenodesis incorporated into a supraspinatus tendon repair.

Study Design:

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

Patients undergoing surgical treatment of supraspinatus tendon tears with concomitant biceps tendon pathology were prospectively enrolled from 2014 to 2015. A total of 32 patients underwent combined biceps tenodesis and rotator cuff repair; of these, 19 patients were evaluated for a mean of 2.0 years. The primary outcome measures were the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES; patient self-report and physician assessment sections), visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, responses to specific biceps-related assessments, and biceps specific physical exam findings.

Results:

Patient-reported ASES scores improved from 45.9 preoperatively to 91.6 at the 2-year follow-up (P < .001). Pain VAS scores improved from 5.2 preoperatively to 0.7 at the 2-year follow-up (P < .001). Preoperatively, 18 patients had a positive Speed test; all were negative at 5 months postoperatively, and 21 patients had bicipital groove tenderness preoperatively, which resolved in all 21 patients at 5 months postoperatively. At the 2-year follow-up, 2 patients had cramping arm pain and 4 patients noticed a change in arm contour. There were no reoperations. No complications occurred in the study group.

Conclusion:

Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis incorporated into a supraspinatus tendon repair was a safe and reliable option for biceps pathology with a concomitant rotator cuff tear.

Editorial Commentary: Biceps Tenodesis Location May Not Matter: Go High…Go Low…Go Wherever You Want to Go!

Tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon has long been a source of dialogue, discussion, debate, and dogma. In general, the shoulder literature has been exhaustive regarding various biceps tenodesis techniques and outcomes, and studies have shown positive clinical outcomes of tenodesis, regardless of location, along the proximal humerus. Fewer studies have evaluated the outcomes of revision tenodesis; however, those that have looked at this have generally found that a revision to a subpectoral tenodesis site is usually quite successful.

Conversion of Failed Proximal Long Head of the Biceps Tenodesis to Distal Subpectoral Tenodesis: Outcomes in an Active Population

PURPOSE

To assess failure rates and patient reported outcomes following revision of failed proximal long head of the biceps (LHB) tenodesis.

METHODS

Patients from an active-military population who underwent revision proximal (suprapectoral) to distal (subpectoral) LHB tenodesis were prospectively enrolled. Patients were included if they were between the ages of 16 and 60 years presenting after a previous biceps tenodesis with mechanical failure and clinical failure, defined as Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) or American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) <70. Exclusion criteria were concomitant rotator cuff repair or debridement, full-thickness rotator cuff tear, extensive labral tears, or any evidence of glenohumeral arthritis. Pre- and postoperative SANE and ASES were documented and analyzed.

RESULTS

From 2004 to 2010, a total of 12 patients (all male) with a mean age of 39.9 years (range, 30-54 years) were assessed at a mean follow-up time of 29 months (range, 24-38 months). Nine patients presented with a failed tenodesis construct located at the top of the bicipital groove and 9 patients had LHB tendons originally affixed with an interference screw. Diagnostic arthroscopy revealed that the majority of patients (10/12) had excessive scarring at the site of previous fixation. Mean preoperative assessments of SANE (70.4) and ASES (59.9) improved postoperatively to SANE (90.3; P < .01) and ASES (89.8; P < .01). No patients were lost due to follow-up, and there were no reported complications or failures. All patients returned to full active duty and were able to perform all required physical tests before returning to their vocation.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients presenting with symptoms following a proximal LHB tenodesis can be successfully converted to a distal (subpectoral) LHB tenodesis with favorable outcomes. Although in a small sample, there was excessive scarring and synovitis in a majority, which improved significantly when treated with a revision subpectoral tenodesis with minimal complication risk and no reported failures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV (Therapeutic case series).

The Loop 'n' Tack Knot: Biomechanical Analysis of a Novel Suture Technique for Proximal Biceps Tenodesis

Background

Secure tendon grasping is critical to the success of any tenodesis procedure. Several techniques currently used for tendon grasping can result in longitudinal splitting of the tendon, causing construct failure and failure of the tenodesis.

Purpose

To compare the Loop 'n' Tack knot as a tendon-grasping technique with other common suture techniques. We investigated the biomechanical strength and mode of failure.

Study Design

Controlled laboratory study.

Methods

Eleven matched pairs of proximal biceps were harvested from fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders. One tendon from each pair was stitched using 1 of 4 different techniques. The suture techniques evaluated included the Loop 'n' Tack with 2 different types of high-strength nonabsorbable suture, a double half-racking stitch, and a Krakow stitch. Samples were cyclically loaded between 5 and 20 N for 100 cycles, followed by a pull to failure at 33 mm/s.

Results

The Loop 'n' Tack techniques were equivalent to the double half-racking and Krakow techniques for load to ultimate failure (P = .817 and P = .984, respectively). The double half-racking technique was the stiffest construct, which was significantly greater than the second-stiffest group, the Loop 'n' Tack method with both FiberLink suture (P = .012) and SutureTape (P = .002), which had greater stiffness than the Krakow group (P < .001). The most common failure mode for the Loop 'n' Tack stitch was suture breakage compared with the Krakow and double half-racking methods, where the most common mode of failure was suture pullout from the tendon (P < .001).

Conclusion

Biomechanical testing found that the Loop 'n' Tack techniques had similar ultimate load to failure values when compared with the double half-racking and Krakow methods. Mode-of-failure analysis showed that the Loop 'n' Tack construct typically failed by suture breakage, whereas the other techniques failed by suture pullout.

Clinical Relevance

The Loop 'n' Tack technique allows for secure grasping of tissue without the need for externalization of the tendon. This technique may be beneficial in compromised or poor-quality tissue without reducing overall pullout strength when compared with a standard half-racking or Krakow stitch.

Arthroscopic Biceps Tenodesis Outcomes: A Comparison of Inlay and Onlay Techniques

BACKGROUND

Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis (ABT) high in the groove can be achieved using an inlay or an onlay technique. However, there is little information comparing outcomes between the 2.

PURPOSE

To compare postoperative healing and functional outcomes of ABT high in the groove performed using either an onlay or an inlay technique.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed on patients undergoing ABT at the articular margin (high in the groove) at a single center over a 2-year period. An inlay technique using an interference screw was performed during the first year, followed by an onlay technique using a knotless suture anchor during the second. Tendon healing, elbow flexion strength, functional outcome, and complications were evaluated at a postoperative minimum of 1 year.

RESULTS

A total of 37 patients with inlay and 53 with onlay ABTs were available for follow-up. There was no difference in range of motion, functional outcome scores, or elbow flexion strength between the groups. A postoperative popeye deformity was noted in 27% of patients in the inlay group as compared with 9.4% of the onlay group (P = .028). Four patients (10.8%) in the inlay group required revision surgery (2 of which were biceps tenodesis related) as compared with 0% in the onlay group (P = .015).

CONCLUSION

An onlay technique using a knotless suture anchor for ABT at the top of the articular margin is an acceptable alternative to an inlay technique using an interference screw. The onlay technique was associated with lower rates of postoperative popeye deformity and revision surgery as compared with the inlay technique.

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.

Editorial Commentary: Shoulder Biceps Tenodesis Implant Selection Requires Consideration of Complications and Cost

The long head of biceps tendon (LHB) has been evaluated as one of the most important pain generators of the shoulder. In addition, an unstable LHB can cause cartilage lesions of the humerus. For the treatment of LHB lesions, tenodesis or tenotomy has been shown to be appropriate. A well-performed biceps tenodesis provides a lower rate of Popeye-sign deformities compared with tenotomy but must result in low implant complication rates and costs.

Costs, Complications, and Reoperations Associated With Primary Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair With or Without Acromioplasty and/or Biceps Tenodesis

Purpose

To evaluate the reoperations, complications, and costs up to 5 years following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) alone, with acromioplasty (acro), with biceps tenodesis (BT), or with both acro and BT.

Methods

We queried the MarketScan database to identify patients who underwent RCR from 2007 to 2016. Patients were stratified into groups based on concomitant procedures (acro and/or BT) performed on the same day as index RCR. Reoperations, complications, and costs were followed for 5 years post-index procedure. Patients without laterality codes were excluded. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to control for confounding factors.

Results

This study identified 147,838 patients (mean age, 53.1 years; standard deviation, 8.3 years) who underwent primary RCR. Patients were stratified into 4 groups: (1) RCR only, (2) RCR + acro, (3) RCR + BT, and (4) RCR + acro + BT. Patients in the RCR only group experienced the highest rate of unadjusted overall postoperative complications (17.2%) versus the other groups (RCR + acro 16.4%, RCR + BT 15.1%, RCR + acro + BT 16.2%, P < .0161). The RCR only group also experienced a significantly greater number of reoperations on the ipsilateral shoulder (P < .0001), whereas the RCR + acro + BT had the highest costs at all timepoints. In the regression analysis, there was no significant differences between complications and reoperations between any groups. After adjusting for covariates, the performance of a BT with an RCR and acromioplasty led to increased costs (odds ratio, 1.47, 1.37-1.59, P < .001).

Conclusions

Concomitant biceps tenodesis does lead to higher total healthcare costs, both in the shorter and longer terms. When adjusting for confounding factors, the performance of concomitant biceps tenodesis with rotator cuff repair does not lead to a difference in postoperative complication rate or risk for revision surgery.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, economic analysis.

Arthroscopic supraglenoid origin-preserving biceps tenodesis: a reliable, simple, and cost-conscious technique

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to assess the midterm clinical and ultrasonographic outcomes of a new all arthroscopic supraglenoid origin-preserving tenodesis technique of the long head of the biceps (LHB) brachii tendon in the setting of small to medium-sized rotator cuff repairs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty patients (33 shoulders) meeting inclusion criteria were identified who underwent LHB tenodesis with this technique in the setting of small to medium-sized rotator cuff repair at a mean age at surgery of 65.6 years between 2015 and 2017. Rotator cuff tears were repaired using the Southern California Orthopedic Institute (SCOI) row technique. The biceps tenodesis was incorporated into the anterior anchor of the rotator cuff repair after bony groove preparation, including débridement and bone vent placement. Frayed edges of the biceps tendon were gently débrided, but the intra-articular glenoid attachment was left intact. Patients were assessed at follow-up by clinical and ultrasonographic examination, as well as a satisfaction questionnaire, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) score and visual analog scale (VAS) score.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up was 32.9 months for the 27 patients (30 shoulders), resulting in a 91% follow-up. Average ASES score was 94.4. Average patient-reported satisfaction with shoulder function was 9.4 of 10 and with biceps contour was 9.9 of 10. Average VAS score was 0.6 of 10, and 73% of patients reported a VAS score of 0. Ultrasonography demonstrated an intact biceps tendon in 27 of 28 shoulders and an intact supraspinatus tendon in all 28 shoulders. Mean range of motion was 170° in forward flexion, 169° in abduction, 49° in external rotation, and to thoracic vertebrae 12 in internal rotation. Mean muscle grading during Jobe test was 4.8 of 5. There were no intraoperative complications. No patients required revision surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

In situ arthroscopic biceps tenodesis with maintenance of the glenoid attachment incorporated into rotator cuff repair yields a high rate of healing and consistently excellent functional and cosmetic outcomes as well as patient satisfaction while saving surgical time and cost.

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.

Suprapectoral versus subpectoral tenodesis for Long Head Biceps Brachii tendinopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Suprapectoral long head biceps (LHB) tenodesis and subpectoral LHB tenodesis are both commonly performed surgical procedures. Due to the more proximal position of the suprapectoral tenodesis site this technique may be accompanied with more postoperative pain in the bicipital groove and cramping pain in the biceps muscle. We hypothesized that subpectoral tenodesis is associated with a better clinical outcome than suprapectoral tenodesis.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in PubMed and Embase from January 2000 to July 2019 with the terms "biceps" and "tenodesis". Only comparing studies reporting on American Shoulder Elbow Score (ASES), VAS for anterior shoulder pain, Constant Murley Score (CMS), pain in the bicipital groove and Popeye deformity following suprapectoral and subpectoral tenodesis were included. Quality assessment of included articles was performed using the Coleman score.

RESULTS

Seven comparative studies with 409 patients reporting the results of LHB suprapectoral and subpectoral tenodesis were included. A significant, but clinically irrelevant difference in ASES (mean difference 2.15) p=0.01 was observed. No significant difference in CMS (mean difference 0.09), VAS for anterior shoulder pain (mean difference 0.01), Popeye deformity (odds ratio 3.19) and persistent bicipital pain (odds ratio 2.66). The Coleman score ranged between 53 and 87.

CONCLUSION

Based on this meta-analysis we found a significantly, though not clinically relevant difference in ASES in favour of subpectoral LHB tenodesis when compared with suprapectoral LHB tenodesis. Comparable results were found with regard to outcome scores, pain in the bicipital groove and avoiding a Popeye deformity.

Intra-articular arthroscopic biceps tenodesis with interference screw: clinical and isokinetic evaluation

Background

Although biceps tenodesis has been widely used to treat its pathologies, few studies looked at the objective evaluation of elbow strength after this procedure. The purpose of this study is to clinically evaluate patients submitted to long head of the biceps (LHB) tenodesis with interference screws through an intra-articular approach and analyze the results of an isokinetic test to measure elbow flexion and forearm supination strengths.

Methods

Patients who had biceps tenodesis were included in the study if they had a minimum follow-up of 24 months. Patients were excluded if they had concomitant irreparable cuff tears or previous or current contralateral shoulder pain or weakness. Postoperative evaluation was based on University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder score and on measurements of elbow flexion and supination strength, using an isokinetic dynamometer. Tests were conducted in both arms, with velocity set at 60º/s with 5 concentric-concentric repetitions.

Results

Thirty-three patients were included and the most common concomitant diagnosis were rotator cuff tear (69%) and superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) lesions (28%). The average UCLA score improved from 15.1 preoperatively to 31.9 in the final follow-up (P < .001). Isokinetic tests showed no difference in peak torque between the upper limbs. One patient had residual pain in the biceps groove. None of the patients had Popeye deformity. UCLA score and follow-up length did not demonstrate correlation with peak torque.

Conclusion

Arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis with interference screw, close to the articular margin, yielded good clinical results. Isokinetic tests revealed no difference to the contralateral side in peak torque for both supination and elbow flexion.

Are Implant Choice and Surgical Approach Associated With Biceps Tenodesis Construct Strength? A Systematic Review and Meta-regression

BACKGROUND

Despite the increasing use of biceps tenodesis, there is a lack of consensus regarding optimal implant choice (suture anchor vs interference screw) and implant placement (suprapectoral vs subpectoral).

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The purpose was to determine the associations of procedural parameters with the biomechanical performance of biceps tenodesis constructs. The authors hypothesized that ultimate failure load (UFL) would not differ between sub- and suprapectoral repairs or between interference screw and suture anchor constructs and that the number of implants and number of sutures would be positively associated with construct strength.

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

METHODS

The authors conducted a systematic literature search for studies that measured the biomechanical performance of biceps tenodesis repairs in human cadaveric specimens. Two independent reviewers extracted data from studies that met the inclusion criteria. Meta-regression was then performed on the pooled data set. Outcome variables were UFL and mode of failure. Procedural parameters (fixation type, fixation site, implant diameter, and numbers of implants and sutures used) were included as covariates. Twenty-five biomechanical studies, representing 494 cadaveric specimens, met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The use of interference screws (vs suture anchors) was associated with a mean 86 N-greater UFL (95% CI, 34-138 N; P = .002). Each additional suture used to attach the tendon to the implant was associated with a mean 53 N-greater UFL (95% CI, 24-81 N; P = .001). Multivariate analysis found no significant association between fixation site and UFL. Finally, the use of suture anchors and fewer number of sutures were both independently associated with lower odds of native tissue failure as opposed to implant pullout.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that fixation with interference screws, rather than suture anchors, and the use of more sutures are associated with greater biceps tenodesis strength, as well as higher odds of native tissue failure versus implant pullout. Although constructs with suture anchors show inferior UFL compared with those with interference screws, incorporation of additional sutures may increase the strength of suture anchor constructs. Supra- and subpectoral repairs provide equivalent biomechanical strength when controlling for potential confounders.

Long head of biceps tenodesis at the superior aspect of the biceps groove: A biomechanical comparison of inlay and onlay techniques

PURPOSE

Pathology involving the long head of the biceps tendon is a common source of shoulder pain. Biceps tenodesis has been successfully used in areas below the pectoralis, above the pectoralis, and above the biceps groove. However, clinical data are lacking for additional techniques for tenodesis at the superior aspect of the biceps groove.

METHODS

A biomechanical comparison was completed examining six matched pairs of cadaveric shoulders. The ultimate load to failure was compared between an inlay and onlay biceps tenodesis at the superior aspect of the biceps groove.

RESULTS

The results demonstrate an average construct strength of 215 N for the inlay technique and 210 N for the onlay technique. The difference between the two techniques was not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates similar biomechanical strength for both constructs.

Complications of Arthroscopic Versus Open Biceps Tenodesis in the Setting of Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repairs: An Analysis of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Database

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to compare complication rates between arthroscopic versus open biceps tenodesis in the setting of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair and to determine the effect of fellowship training on complication rates.

METHODS

The American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery database was used to identify cases of arthroscopic and open biceps tenodesis in the setting of rotator cuff repair between 2012 and 2016. Surgical, medical, and anesthetic complications, location, fellowship training, surgery year, and patient demographic data were recorded. Overall and specific complication rates were calculated and analyzed. Chi-square or Fisher exact tests were used to determine statistical significance.

RESULTS

Altogether, 1,725 cases of arthroscopic biceps tenodesis and 1,637 cases of open biceps tenodesis with arthroscopic rotator cuff repair were analyzed. No significant difference was found between overall complication rates between arthroscopic (11.4%) versus open (13.1%) biceps tenodesis (P = 0.14). Although open tenodesis had statistically significant higher rates of wound healing issues (0.7% versus 0.2%, P = 0.02), hematoma/seroma formation (0.5% versus 0.1%, P = 0.02), nerve injury (1.5% versus 0.4%, P < 0.01), deep vein thrombosis (0.49% versus 0.12%, P ≤ 0.05), and general anesthetic complications (0.75% versus 0.06%, P = 0.03), these rates remain comparably low. Shoulder arthroscopy fellowship-trained surgeons were more likely to use arthroscopic techniques than non-fellowship-trained surgeons (P < 0.01) but had a higher complication rate (P = 0.01).

DISCUSSION

No differences were found in overall complication rates between open and arthroscopic biceps tenodesis in the setting of rotator cuff repairs. Although open techniques had statistically significant higher rates of nerve injury, wound complications, and hematoma/seroma formation, this may not reflect clinical significance because these complication rates remained <2% in both techniques. Higher complication rates were seen among fellowship-trained surgeons, which may reflect greater case complexity. Both open and arthroscopic biceps tenodesis in the setting of rotator cuff repair show low complication rates, and the technique should be based on surgeon preference and patient factors.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series.

Arthroscopic All-Inside Biceps Tenodesis: Technique and Outcomes

The long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) is a frequent source of disorders and pathology in the shoulder. Significant evidence is available on the management of disorders of the LHBT in the literature, and the LHBT is frequently addressed intraoperatively when involved in shoulder pathology. An all-arthroscopic, intra-articular biceps tenodesis with suture anchor fixation has several advantages that have not been well described previously, and it does not add significant morbidity to arthroscopic surgery to treat the rotator cuff or other sources of pain. Intra-articular LHBT tenodesis in the bicipital groove thus has advantages of less surgical time and a decreased bone footprint.

Novel implant-free loop Tenodesis vs. simple Tenotomy of the long biceps tendon - a biomechanical investigation

Background

Simple tenotomy and anchor tenodesis are commonly used in treatment of long biceps tendon (LHB) pathologies. The tenotomy can result in biceps distalization or cosmetic deformities. A novel loop Tenodesis Technique (LTD) could prevent a distalization of the biceps muscle without the risk of implant associated complications. The purpose of this study was to investigate the biomechanical aspects of the novel LTD compared to a standard tenotomy of the LHB. It has been hypothesized that the novel technique will show biomechanical superiority in terms of resistance and distalization.

Methods

Seven paired adult human cadaveric shoulder joints were assigned to one of the two study groups: Loop tenodesis (LTD); simple tenotomy (STT). In both groups load-to-failure testing was performed. The load-displacement curve was used to determine the maximum load (N), the degree of distalization of the LHB (mm) and the stiffness (N/mm). Additionally, the mode of failure was registered.

Results

The LTD group achieved a significantly higher ultimate load to failure (LTD: 50.5 ± 12.5 N vs. STT: 6.6 ± 3.9 N; p = 0.001). Significantly less distalization of the tendon could be detected for the LTD group (LTD: 8 ± 2.3 mm vs. STT: 22.4 ± 2.4 mm; p = 0.001). Stiffness was 7.4 ± 3.9 N/mm for the LTD group and 0.23 ± 0.16 N/mm for the STT group (p = 0.001). In all specimens of the LTD group a tendon rupture was found as mode of failure, while the STT group failed because of pulling out the LHB through the bicipital groove.

Conclusion

The novel loop Tenodesis Technique shows biomechanically higher stability as well as less distalization compared to a simple tenotomy of the long biceps tendon.

Complications of biceps tenodesis based on location, fixation, and indication: a review of 1526 shoulders

BACKGROUND

Long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) tenodesis is predominantly performed for 2 reasons: anterior shoulder pain (ASP) or structural reasons (partial tear, dislocation).

METHODS

Between 2006 and 2014, all cases of primary LHBT tenodesis performed at an integrated health care system were retrospectively reviewed. Complications were analyzed by tenodesis location (below or out of the groove [OOG] vs leaving tendon in the groove [ITG]), fixation method (soft tissue vs implant), and indication (preoperative ASP vs structural).

RESULTS

Among 1526 shoulders, persistent ASP did not differ by fixation method (11.0% for implant vs 12.8% for soft tissue, P = .550) or location (10.8% for OOG vs 12.9% for ITG, P = .472). Soft-tissue tenodesis cases had more frequent new-onset ASP (11.9% vs 2.6%, P < .001) and subjective weakness (8.50% vs 3.92%, P < .001) but less frequent revisions (0% vs 1.19%, P = .03) than implant tenodesis cases. No difference was found between ITG and OOG for persistent ASP (12.9% vs 10.8%, P = .550), new-onset ASP (6.5% vs 2.8%, P = .339), cramping (1.70% vs 2.31%, P = .737), deformity (4.72% vs 4.62%, P = .532), or subjective weakness (6.23% vs 4.32%, P = .334), but ITG cases had more revisions (1.51% vs 0.60%, P = .001). Among implant tenodesis cases, 1 shoulder (0.085%) sustained a fracture.

CONCLUSION

The overall complication rate of LHBT tenodesis was low. Of the shoulders, 10.8% to 12.9% continued to have ASP, regardless of whether the LHBT was left ITG. Soft-tissue tenodesis cases had higher rates of new-onset ASP and subjective weakness. No significant difference for tenodesis ITG or OOG was found in biceps-related complications.

The "Double Lasso-Loop" Technique Used for Arthroscopic Proximal Biceps Tenodesis

Disorders of the long head biceps tendon are among the most challenging of shoulder problems to diagnose and manage. In this Technical Note, we introduce an arthroscopic technique for proximal biceps tenodesis high in the groove at the articular margin of the humeral head using a single anchor and 2 self-cinching loops followed by 5 alternating half-hitches to secure the construct. This method is simple and enables stable fixation of the biceps tendon.

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.

Superior Capsular Reconstruction Reverses Profound Pseudoparalysis in Patients With Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tears and Minimal or No Glenohumeral Arthritis

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to investigate the rate and magnitude of return of active forward elevation (aFE) of the arm for patients with severe preoperative elevation dysfunction (less than 45° of aFE and termed profound pseudoparalysis) and massive, irreparable (or partially reparable) rotator cuff tears without arthritis treated with arthroscopic superior capsular reconstruction (SCR).

METHODS

The period for this retrospective study was October 2014 to October 2016. Inclusion criteria included patients treated arthroscopically for an incompletely reparable massive rotator cuff tear (2 tendons fully torn or tear dimension > 5 cm), preoperative aFE of less than 45° (profound pseudoparalysis) with full passive elevation, an intact or reparable subscapularis tendon, radiographic classification Hamada 0-3, and 12-month clinical follow-up. The primary outcome measure was aFE (degrees) at 1 year postoperative. Secondary outcomes included visual analog scale pain rating (0-10), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, subjective shoulder value, and active external rotation. Graft integrity and Goutallier grade of supraspinatus and infraspinatus at 1 year postoperative were evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging.

RESULTS

Ten patients met the inclusion criteria. Nine of 10 patients (90%) regained active overhead use of the arm after SCR with preoperative aFE (mean ± standard error of the mean [95% confidence interval (CI)]) 27° ± 2° [95% CI, 24°-30°] improving to postoperative aFE 159° ± 15° [95% CI, 130°-187°; P < .0001]. All secondary outcome measures were also improved at 1 year postoperative (visual analog scale, 4.6 ± 0.8 to 0.5 ± 0.2; P = .001; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, 52 ± 6 to 89 ± 3; P = .0002; subjective shoulder value, 36 ± 3 to 91 ± 1; P < .0001; active external rotation, 24° ± 7° to 43° ± 8°; P = .002), and 7 of 10 SCR grafts were fully healed by MRI. No complications or reoperations occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Profound pseudoparalysis of the shoulder (active elevation less than 45°) in massive, irreparable rotator cuff tears without arthritis was reversed in 90% of patients after arthroscopic SCR. Reverse shoulder replacement has been proposed to be the only reliable surgical option in this patient group, but SCR appears to be a valid joint-preserving option for improving function with a low rate of complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Biceps tenodesis versus biceps tenotomy for biceps tendinitis without rotator cuff tears

Disorders of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHB) are a well-recognised cause of shoulder pain despite the function of the long head of the biceps remaining poorly understood. There has been a dramatic rise in the number of biceps tenodesis procedures being performed in the last decade. This may partly be attributed to concerns regarding residual cosmetic deformity and pain after biceps tenotomy though there is little evidence to suggest that functional outcomes of tenodesis are superior to biceps tenotomy. Current literature focuses on LHB disorders with concomitant rotator cuff tears. The aim of this review is to discuss the anatomy of the LHB, the pathogenesis of tendinopathy of the LHB, indications of biceps tenodesis and tenotomy and compare the current literature on the functional outcomes of these procedures for LHB disorders in the absence of rotator cuff tears.

Surgical Management of Proximal Long Head Biceps Tendon Disorders

Disorders of the long head of the biceps tendon can make a significant contribution to shoulder pain and dysfunction. Historically, open biceps tenotomy or a proximal tenodesis of the tendon through a deltopectoral approach was used to manage biceps tendonitis and instability. Recent developments have added additional options. Arthroscopic techniques offer minimally invasive methods to secure the biceps in the suprapectoral region at the appropriate length. An open subpectoral tenodesis provides for simple exposure that secures the tendon just proximal to the musculotendinous junction and eliminates potentially diseased tendon and synovium from the biceps groove. Common fixation methods include the use of interference screws, suture anchors, and button devices. Future developments will likely add modified tenotomy techniques that will minimize the Popeye deformity in low-demand individuals. Simpler, but secure methods of fixation for higher demand patients will minimize the operative time required.

Long Head of Biceps Injury: Treatment Options and Decision Making

The long head of the biceps brachii is a well-known "pain generator" in the shoulder. Biceps tendinitis, instability, and rupture encompass the majority of symptomatic lesions. Clinical diagnosis, particularly of biceps tendinitis, can be difficult, given the nonspecific physical examination findings. Treatment options are initially nonoperative, with surgical management reserved for specific presentations or refractory cases. In recent years, biceps tenodesis and tenotomy have become the mainstays of operative treatment. Management of biceps lesions must also involve consideration of other shoulder pathology, as they are often not an isolated finding. Although there remains debate on the best treatment options for long head of the biceps injuries, a review of current literature provides important principles that can help guide clinical decision making.

Clinical Evaluation of an Arthroscopic Knotless Suprapectoral Biceps Tenodesis Technique: Loop 'n' Tack Tenodesis

Background:

Pathology of the long head of the biceps tendon is a well-known cause of shoulder pain that is commonly managed with arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis when conservative treatment fails.

Purpose:

To present an arthroscopic knotless suprapectoral biceps tenodesis technique known as “Loop ’n’ Tack” tenodesis and to report the clinical outcomes of patients with a minimum 2 years of follow-up.

Study Design:

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

A retrospective review of all patients who had undergone Loop ’n’ Tack tenodesis between January 2009 and May 2014 was completed. Charts were reviewed, and patients were contacted for demographic data, time from surgery, concomitant procedures, and workers’ compensation status, as well as visual analog scale for pain, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) scores.

Results:

Complete follow-up evaluations were performed for 59 of 68 patients (87%). Mean follow-up was 43 months. A majority (88%) of patients had at least 1 additional procedure performed at the time of biceps tenodesis. The mean ASES shoulder score improved from 42.6 preoperatively to 91.0 postoperatively (P < .001), and 54 of 59 patients (91.5%) had a good/excellent outcome, with a UCLA shoulder score >27 and ASES shoulder score >70. Three patients (5%) reported biceps cramping pain with overuse, and 2 (3.3%) reported intermittent anterior shoulder pain. No patients had developed a “Popeye” deformity at final clinical examination, and 97% reported that they were overall satisfied with the procedure.

Conclusion:

The Loop ’n’ Tack tenodesis technique results in a high rate of patient satisfaction, significant improvement in shoulder outcome scores, and a low incidence of postoperative pain, with no reoperations for biceps-related pathology.

Preoperative Radiographic Risk Factors for Incomplete Arthroscopic Supraspinatus Tendon Repair in Massive Rotator Cuff Tears

PURPOSE

To determine if preoperative imaging findings of massive rotator cuff (RC) tears were associated with (1) incomplete arthroscopic repair and (2) the use of advanced mobilization techniques (interval slides) and/or the use of a load-sharing rip stop repair construct.

METHODS

Eighty-six consecutive patients who underwent arthroscopic repair for massive RC tears performed by a single surgeon between July 2013 and July 2015 were retrospectively evaluated. Previously proposed radiographic risk factors for irreparability (acromiohumeral distances, tangent sign, and the Goutallier stage of fatty infiltration for the supraspinatus) were analyzed. Associations between preoperative imaging characteristics and intraoperative results of RC surgery were determined using binary logistic regressions and Fisher's exact tests. The interobserver reliability of imaging characteristics was determined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs).

RESULTS

Seventy-six massive RC tears were fully reparable (88%). In the case of 10 RC tears (12%), a complete repair was not obtained. Inability to obtain a complete repair of the supraspinatus was associated with a positive tangent sign (30% irreparable) versus a negative tangent sign (6.3% irreparable, odds ratio [OR] = 6.3, P = .0102) and with Goutallier grade 3-4 fatty infiltration of the supraspinatus (42.9% irreparable) versus grade 0-2 fatty infiltration (5.7% irreparable, OR = 11.8, P = .001). Advanced arthroscopic techniques (interval slides or load-sharing rip stop) for dealing with poor-quality or retracted tendon were used in 62% of cases; however, no associations were found between preoperative imaging characteristics and these techniques. Interobserver reliability was moderate (ICC = 0.75-0.90) for the tangent sign (ICC = 0.78) and high-grade (Goutallier 3-4) fatty infiltration of the supraspinatus (ICC = 0.74).

CONCLUSIONS

A positive tangent sign and/or high-grade fatty infiltration (Goutallier 3-4) of the supraspinatus were risk factors for incomplete RC repair. However, these were not completely predictive of reparability because the majority of massive RC tears with these imaging characteristics were still fully reparable.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Technique for Arthroscopic Long Head of Biceps Tenodesis Using Anchor With Fork Tip Eyelet

This article describes a method of arthroscopic subscapular tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon using a single anterolateral portal, making it a minimally invasive procedure. This method is done by using the Swivelock tenodesis anchor with forked tip PEEK Eyelet from Arthrex, which enables anatomically stable fixation of the biceps tendon with a relatively decreased rate of complications.

Editorial Commentary: Shoulder Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Significantly Increases the Humeral Fracture Risk-Is This a Reason to Look for Alternatives?

Subpectoral tenodesis is performed at the surgical neck of the humerus. In a cadaveric study, the insertion of a unicortical PEEK (polyether ether ketone) screw decreased the torsional load to failure (fracture) by 30% compared with intact control specimens but was similar to unicortical reaming without screw insertion. Placing the biceps tendon into the tunnel and securing it with a unicortical screw reduced the torsional load to failure by 20%. Whether these facts are significant is currently unknown, but the creation of a stress riser is a concern and may possibly result in surgical neck fractures.

The modified Norwegian method of biceps tenodesis: how well does it work?

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes and complications in a series of patients who underwent the modified Norwegian method (MNM) of biceps tenodesis by a single shoulder surgeon.

METHODS

A retrospective review of charts from all patients who underwent the modified Norwegian method of biceps tenodesis by the senior author during a 5-year period between 2008 and 2013 was performed. After all patients were identified, informed consent was obtained and DASH and ASES surveys were administered. Inclusion criteria for the study were a minimum 2-year follow-up after MNM tenodesis and appropriate adherence to DASH and ASES survey protocol. Data obtained included: demographic data, time to follow-up, hand dominance, concomitant procedures, workman's compensation (WC) status, DASH and ASES surveys, and complications. A complication was defined as rupture of the tenodesis or post-operative infection. Residual shoulder pain was considered as treatment failure. The data were then analysed using statistical software. In this time period, 94 biceps tenodeses using the MNM technique were performed. Follow-up rate was 75/94 patients (80 %). Of 75 patients, 15 (20 %) had an isolated tenodesis performed.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in DASH or ASES scores when comparing isolated tenodesis patients to those who had concomitant procedures. WC patients had worse DASH and ASES scores (p = 0.016; p = 0.002). The complication rate was 2/75 (3 %), which were both ruptured tenodeses. Of 75 patients, 3 (4 %) experienced treatment failure with residual anterior shoulder pain.

CONCLUSIONS

There is debate in the literature regarding the optimal method of biceps tenodesis. This paper demonstrates that the MNM tenodesis appears to be a simple, efficient, and effective alternative to other methods of biceps tenodesis with subjective outcome scores and complication rates that parallel other methods previously described in the literature.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Superior Capsular Reconstruction

Superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) of the shoulder has recently gained popularity as an option for joint-preserving shoulder surgery for patients with an irreparable rotator cuff tear. In the absence of glenohumeral arthritis, rotator cuff tear irreparability should only be diagnosed for most patients after a careful diagnostic arthroscopy. Superior capsular reconstruction adds biological, passive, superior constraint to the glenohumeral joint, thereby optimizing the rotator cuff force couples and improving joint kinematics. At short-term follow-up, SCR has been shown to be effective for pain relief and restoration of active shoulder motion, even in the worst cases of shoulder dysfunction (true shoulder pseudoparalysis). The rapid early adoption and expansion of SCR is justified by its excellent anatomical, biomechanical, and short-term clinical results. The techniques for arthroscopic SCR using dermal allograft continue to improve; however, the operation remains technically demanding. Patients with risk factors for irreparability and who might benefit from reconstruction of the superior capsule should be counseled about the operation as an additional, joint-preserving procedure that can be done in conjunction with arthroscopic, partial rotator cuff repair. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(5):271-280.].