Open Biceps Tenodesis Associated With Slightly Greater Rate of 30-Day Complications Than Arthroscopic: A Propensity-Matched Analysis

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.

Two-Year Clinical Outcomes and Survivorship After Isolated Biceps Tenodesis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes and survivorship of isolated biceps tenodesis (BT) at a minimum of 2 years and to identify patient-specific factors associated with these outcomes in patients undergoing BT without concomitant rotator cuff repair (RCR). We hypothesized that patient-reported outcomes would be significantly improved on American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Survey (ASES) and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), with a high rate of survivorship (>90%) at 2-year follow-up.

METHODS

A retrospective review of an institutional registry was performed to identify patients who underwent BT from July 2016 to December 2017. Patients >18 years old who underwent an open or arthroscopic BT procedure using an interference screw, button, or anchor for underlying bicipital pathology, without a concomitant RCR or shoulder arthroplasty, and were a minimum of 2 years postoperative were included. Patients were administered ASES and SANE questionnaires preoperatively and at final follow-up. Survivorship was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Failure was defined as any patient who underwent reoperation related to the index surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 110 patients (mean ± standard deviation age, 48.60 ± 12.14 years) who underwent isolated BT with a follow-up of 24.90 ± 3.95 months were included in analysis. There was a significant improvement in ASES and SANE at final follow-up (P < .001), with 81% to 84% of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID), 72% to 82% achieving substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and 72% to 80% achieving patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS). Worker's Compensation (WC) patients had a decreased likelihood of achieving PASS on ASES (P = .015) and SANE (P = .012). Four cases were deemed failures (3 revision BTs and 1 capsular debridement) at 15.09 ± 9.57 months. WC did not have a significant effect on likelihood of BT failure.

CONCLUSION

Biceps tenodesis provided significant clinical improvement and high rates of survivorship 2 years postoperatively. WC was associated with a decreased likelihood of achieving PASS. These results support the continued use of isolated BT for treating biceps pathology.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, case series.

"Triple-Fix" Arthroscopic Biceps Tenodesis: Indications and Technique

Pathology of the long head of the bicep tendon is a common cause of anterior shoulder pain and frequently is treated surgically using either tenodesis or tenotomy. Tenodesis often is the preferred technique for younger, more active patients and laborers, especially when cosmesis and preservation of function are clinical priorities. However, the security of the tenodesis varies with fixation methods and techniques, and failure of the tenodesis can have both cosmetic and symptomatic consequences. Traditional arthroscopic tenodesis also can be technically challenging, as it usually requires extra-articular identification of the bicep tendon within the bicipital groove. The arthroscopic surgical technique described is an approach that has been routinely employed by the senior author for approximately 8 years that allows for accurate and reproducible exposure of the biceps tendon within the bicipital groove along with secure, anatomic tenodesis of the long head of the bicep tendon.

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

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

Mini-Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Using a Suture Anchor with Bone-Bridge Backup

Pathology of the long head of the biceps tendon is a known cause of anterior shoulder pain. Current surgical management options include tenotomy and tenodesis. Tenodesis can be performed arthroscopically or as an open procedure. Arthroscopic tenodesis typically uses a suprapectoral attachment, which may fail to address tendon pathology in the bicipital groove. Open tenodesis carries iatrogenic risk to neurovascular structures and a fracture risk while drilling, as well as the morbidity of an open procedure. This technique paper describes a mini-open subpectoral approach using a suture anchor and bone bridge backup for dual fixation. Use of a suture anchor instead of an interference screw reduces drill hole diameter reducing the risk of iatrogenic humeral fracture. Dual fixation provides a robust repair which may be of use for athletic patients desiring an accelerated recovery.

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.

Length of stay and 30-day readmissions after isolated humeral shaft fracture open reduction and internal fixation compared to intramedullary nailing

INTRODUCTION

Open reduction with internal fixation (ORIF) and intramedullary nailing (IMN) have similar union rates for treating humerus shaft fractures, but IMN leads to increased incidence of shoulder impingement and reoperation. The difference in 30-day readmission rate and length of stay (LOS) between these procedures is unknown. The objective of the study was to compare 30-day unplanned readmissions and length of stay between humeral shaft fractures fixed with either ORIF or IMN.

METHODS

The nationwide readmissions database (NRD) was queried for patients with humeral shaft fractures treated with ORIF or IMN between 2015-2016. IMN cases were propensity matched to ORIF cases based on demographic and co-morbid variables. Multivariable logistic regression determined if treatment modality was an independent risk factor for 30-day readmission or length of stay >3 days.

RESULTS

There were 406 patients treated with IMN matched to 406 patients treated with ORIF. The 30-day readmission rate was 6.4% for IMN and 4.9% for ORIF (p = 0.45), and the median LOS was 3 days for each group (p = 0.45). Congestive heart failure (CHF)(OR=2.7, p = 0.04), depression (OR=3.3, p = 0.0008), and electrolyte abnormality (OR=3.6, p = 0.0003) were independent risk factors for readmission. Older age (OR=1.02, p = 0.03), CHF (OR=2.4, p = 0.03), electrolyte abnormality (OR=2.6, p = 0.0001), obesity (OR=2.8, p<0.0001), Medicaid (OR=2.1, p = 0.04), discharge to a facility (OR = 5.2, p<0.0001), discharge with home health services (OR=2.4, p = 0.0003), and open fracture (OR=2.3, p = 0.01) were independent risk factors for LOS >3 days. Procedure (ORIF vs. IMN) was not a predictor of 30-day readmission or LOS >3 days.

CONCLUSION

Comorbid conditions are risk factors for 30-day readmission and increased LOS. Comorbidity, discharge disposition, and open fractures are risk factors for increased LOS. Treating humeral shaft fractures with either ORIF or IMN did not affect readmission or length of stay.

Editorial Commentary: Aim High or Go Low? Outcomes Are Equivalent for Arthroscopic Suprapectoral and Mini-open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis

The contemporary management of biceps-labral pathology has increasingly transitioned toward primary treatment of the long head of the biceps tendon, largely in response to more consistent outcomes relative to SLAP repair and so-called benign neglect. Accordingly, there has been renewed interest in evaluating relevant differences between varying operative techniques and constructs for biceps tenodesis, including an array of subacromial, intra-articular, suprapectoral, and subpectoral methods. Among these, arthroscopic suprapectoral tenodesis and mini-open subpectoral tenodesis remain in contention for "best in show," albeit with distinctly different merits and risks. Important considerations with either technique include restoration of the native length-tension relation, avoidance of perioperative complications, surgical-site morbidity, and technical ease. Dogma aside, surgeons facile with both techniques can confidently counsel their patients on the comparable short-term results after suprapectoral or subpectoral biceps tenodesis.

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

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