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

Long-term patient-reported outcomes of open subpectoral biceps tenodesis with cortical button fixation

BACKGROUND

Open subpectoral biceps tenodesis (OSBT) with cortical button fixation has been shown to deliver acceptable results in the short and intermediate term for long head of the biceps (LHB) pathology with the benefit of smaller bone tunnel diameter and a reduced risk of postoperative humeral shaft fracture. The primary purpose of this study was to determine whether OSBT with cortical button fixation results in significant improvements in patient reported outcomes (PROs) from pre-operative to long-term final follow-up.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent OSBT with cortical button fixation at a single institution between the years of 2012 and 2014 was conducted and PROs were collected in the intermediate (> 2 years follow-up) and long term (> 9 years follow-up). PROs were measured pre-operatively, at intermediate follow-up, and at long-term follow-up using three validated questionnaires: American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score, and Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS). Patients were additionally asked at final follow-up if they would undergo the same procedure again if they needed it.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine (29) patients with a mean age of 51.16 ± 9.06 years at the time of surgery were included in the study at final follow-up. Mean final follow-up time was 10.2 ± 0.5 years (range: 9.2-11.1 years). All PROs (ASES, OSS, and DASH) demonstrated statistically significant improvements from pre-operative to final follow-up with p < 0.01 for each. The proportions of patients exceeding established values for minimum clinically important difference (MCID) were 96.55%, 93.10%, and 75.86% for ASES, OSS, and DASH respectively. Only one patient had required re-operation as of final follow-up. None experienced humeral fractures post-operatively. A significant majority (89.66%; p < 0.01) of patients reported that they would undergo the same procedure again if they needed it. Fifty-three (53) patients were included in the study at intermediate follow-up with a mean follow-up time of 3.5 ± 1.4 years (range: 2-5.3 years). There were no statistically significant differences in any of the PRO measures from intermediate to long-term follow-up.

CONCLUSION

This study reported a minimum 9-year follow-up of patients undergoing OSBT with cortical button fixation for the management of LHBT pathology in the setting of concomitant shoulder procedures. All patients had significantly improved functional outcomes assessed with ASES, OSS, and DASH and no obvious differences in median group scores were found between patients assessed at intermediate (mean 3.5 years) and final (mean 10.2 years) follow-up. No infections, fractures, or fixation failures were reported.

Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Biceps Tenodesis for Isolated Biceps Tendinopathy: Results From 23 Patients

INTRODUCTION

Pathology affecting the long head of the biceps tendon (LHB) is a common cause of shoulder pain. When conservative treatment fails to resolve symptoms, surgical treatment is the modality of choice. The literature describes many arthroscopic and open techniques using different implants. However, no consensus exists on which procedure yields the greatest improvement. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis for treating isolated LHB pathology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We present a case series of 23 patients with isolated LHB pathology who were treated with arthroscopic suprapectoral tenodesis between 2016 and 2022. All surgeries were performed by the same senior surgeon, and patients were assessed preoperatively and one year after the procedure, using the simple shoulder test (SST), Constant score (CS), and visual analog scale (VAS) by the senior surgeon. Statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test, with significance defined as p < 0.05.

RESULTS

The CS improved from 68.52 (SD = 1.59) to 98 (SD = 7.1; p < 0.001), the SST improved from 8.78 (SD = 0.998) to 11.21 (SD = 0.42; p < 0.001), and the VAS improved from 8.26 (SD = 0.54) to 0 (SD = 0; p < 0.001) at one-year follow-up. No complications were reported postoperatively or during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis significantly improved outcomes at one-year follow-up and can be considered an effective and safe choice when treating LHB pathology.

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Biomechanical properties of suprapectoral biceps tenodesis with double-anchor knotless luggage tag sutures vs. subpectoral biceps tenodesis with single-anchor whipstitch suture using all-suture anchors

Background

As the use of all-suture anchors continues to increase, limited biomechanical data on the use of these anchors in various configurations for tenodesis of the long head biceps tendon (LHBT) exists. The aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical properties of a 2-anchor luggage tag suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (Sup-BT) vs. a single-anchor whipstitch subpectoral biceps tenodesis (Sub-BT) using all-suture anchors. The hypothesis was that the Sub-BT will have a higher ultimate load to failure and less creep relative to the Sup-BT construct.

Methods

Eighteen fresh frozen cadaveric humeri were used. The specimens were randomly divided into 2 groups of 9; i) The Sup-BT were performed with 2 1.8 mm knotless all-suture anchors using a luggage-tag fixation configuration, ii) The Sub-BT were performed using a single 1.9 mm all-suture anchor and a whipstitch suture configuration with a tied knot. The humeri were tested on a hydraulic MTS machine where the specimens were preloaded at 5 N for 2 minutes and then cyclically loaded from 5 to 50 N for 1000 cycles at 1 Hz while maximum displacement was recorded with a motion system and markers attached to the bone and bicep tendon. The tendon was then tensioned at a rate of 1 mm/s to obtain the ultimate load to failure. CT scans of the specimens were used to calculate the bone mineral density at the site of the anchor/bone interface and video recordings were captured during load to failure to document all modes of failure.

Results

There was no significant difference in the average load to failure of the Sup-BT and Sub-BT groups (197 N ± 45 N (SD), 164 N ± 68 N (SD) respectively; P = .122) or creep under fatigue between the Sup-BT vs. Sub-BT specimens (3.1 mm, SD = 1.5 vs. 2.2 mm, SD = 0.9; P = .162). The bone mineral density was statistically different between the 2 groups (P < .001); however, there were no observed failures at the anchor/bone interface and no correlation between failure load and bone mineral density.

Conclusion

The ultimate load to failure and creep between a Sup-BT with 2 knotless all-suture anchors using a luggage tag suture configuration was equivalent to a Sub-BT with 1 all-suture anchor using a whipstitched suture configuration and a tied knot. Surgeons can perform either technique confidently knowing that they are biomechanically equivalent in a cadaver model at time zero, and they offer similar strength to other fixation methods cited in the literature.

Tack-and-Loop Biceps Tenodesis of the Shoulder: Description of Technique

Biceps tenodesis is a commonly performed procedure during shoulder arthroscopy to treat proximal biceps pathology either independently or in combination with rotator cuff repair. Although many studies have suggested that biceps tenotomy produces similar outcomes, biceps tenodesis can provide improved cosmetic results; other studies have suggested improved function for higher-functioning individuals who undergo tenodesis.

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.

No Difference in Clinical Outcomes for Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Versus Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis at Midterm Follow-up: A Randomized Prospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

We have previously reported the 1-year outcomes of arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (ASPBT) versus open subpectoral biceps tenodesis (OSPBT) for the management of long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) pathology. While patients had similar 1-year biceps muscle strength and pain, longer-term functional outcomes are unknown.

PURPOSE

To directly compare clinical outcomes of ASPBT versus OSPBT with interference screw fixation, distal to the bony bicipital groove, at a minimum of 2 years' follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

METHODS

A total of 85 patients undergoing biceps tenodesis (BT) for LHBT disease were randomized into the ASPBT or OSPBT group. Both techniques utilized polyether ether ketone inference screws for tenodesis fixation. Patients completed American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Constant subjective, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) questionnaires preoperatively and again at 6 months, 12 months, and at the final follow-up at a minimum of 24 months.

RESULTS

A total of 73 patients (37/42 randomized to ASPBT [88%]; 36/42 randomized to OSPBT [86%]) with a mean age of 50.4 ± 10.3 years and a mean body mass index of 29 ± 7.9 were included in clinical outcome analyses. The mean final follow-up was 2.9 years (ASPBT, 3 years; OSPBT, 2.8 years [range 2-5.2 years]). Comparison of demographic characteristics and intraoperative findings showed no significant differences in age, sex, concomitant procedures, and rotator cuff disease. No statistically significant differences in the ASES (P = .25), Constant subjective (P = .52), and SANE scores (P = .61) were found at the final follow-up. Clinical outcomes scores showed no significant improvement from a mean of 12.6 months to the final follow-up at 34.5 months (ASPBT: ASES, P = .43; Constant, P = .25; SANE, P = .45 vs OSPBT: ASES, P = .65; Constant, P = .78; SANE, P = .70). No patients required revision of BT in either group.

CONCLUSION

This study reported a minimum of 2-year follow-up of patients undergoing ASPBT or OSPBT, utilizing the same interference screw technique, for the management of LHBT pathology in the setting of concomitant shoulder procedures. There were no significant differences in patient-reported outcomes and complication rates found at any time point.

REGISTRATION

NCT02192073 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Single-Portal Proximal Biceps Tenodesis Using an All-Suture Anchor

The long head of the biceps is an important pain generator of the shoulder joint. Pathologies of the long head of the biceps involve superior labrum anterior to posterior lesions, pulley lesions, partial tears of the biceps tendon, biceps tendonitis, and medial biceps subluxation caused by full-thickness subscapularis tendon tears. Treatment of an inflamed or injured long head of the biceps by either tenotomy or tenodesis is often mandatory during shoulder arthroscopy to avoid persisting pain and possible revision procedures. In comparison with a tenotomy of the biceps tendon, a biceps tenodesis preserves the tension, anatomy, and cosmesis of the biceps muscle. The presented technique demonstrates a single portal technique for a proximal biceps tenodesis in the bicipital groove using an all-suture anchor.

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.

Increased Load to Failure in Biceps Tenodesis With All-Suture Suture Anchor Compared With Interference Screw: A Cadaveric Biomechanical Study

PURPOSE

To compare the biomechanical characteristics of a single radially expanding all-suture anchor with an interference screw for open subpectoral long head of biceps tendon (LHBT) tenodesis.

METHODS

Eighteen fresh-frozen matched-pair human cadaveric humeri were used for this biomechanical study. The matched pair humeri were randomly assigned into 2 experimental biceps tenodesis groups: conventional interference screw (CIS) or all-suture suture anchor (ASSA). Open subpectoral LHBT tenodesis was then performed and biomechanical testing was performed using a servohydraulic test frame. A preload of 5 N was applied for 2 minutes before cyclic loading. Displacement was recorded at cycle 300 (D300) and cycle 500 (D500) and at ultimate failure. Data recorded included displacement, load to failure, displacement at failure. Paired t test was used for analysis.

RESULTS

Decreased displacement was observed for the CIS group at D300 (1.67 ± 0.57 mm vs 3.35 ± 2.24 mm; P = .04), D500 (2.00 ± 0.76 mm vs 3.87 ± 2.20 mm; P = .04), and at failure (5.17 ± 3.05 mm vs 10.76 ± 2.66 mm; P < .001). Load to failure was lower in CIS specimens (170 ± 24.5 N vs 217.8 ± 51.54 N; P = .02). Failure in each case was tendon pullout for all CIS specimens; in ASSA 6 specimens failed as the suture pulled through the tendon, 2 specimens failed by suture breakage. No difference in stiffness was observed between the 2 groups (CIS = 98.33 ± 22.98 N/m vs ASSA = 75.94 ± 44.83 N/m; P = .20).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found that open subpectoral biceps tenodesis performed with an ASSA construct results in increased load to failure as compared with CIS. However, the CIS did demonstrate decreased displacement as compared to ASSA in this cadaveric biomechanical study.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

ASSA and CIS at time zero provide fixation as indicated by the provider intraoperatively for LHBT tenodesis. ASSA, however, does remove less cortical bone than does CIS and therefore produces a smaller stress riser in the proximal humerus. Further testing as to the integrity of ASSA is warranted to determine the integrity of the tenodesis with cyclical loading.

Editorial Commentary: What Is More Important: Strength or Displacement? Findings of All-Suture Anchor Versus Interference Screw for Biceps Tenodesis

Tendinopathy of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHB) encompasses a range of pathology, including inflammatory tendinitis to degenerative tendinosis that can lead to pain, as well as instability of the LHB and its surrounding stabilizers. Accordingly, tenodesis of the LHB during shoulder surgery has been increasingly cited in the literature as a viable surgical option for the treatment of LHB pathology. While current treatment options include the use of multiple devices for tenodesis of the LHB, there remains a paucity of literature that investigates the biomechanical advantages of all-suture anchor devices compared to interference screws.

Arthroscopic Biceps Tenodesis by Bicortical Drilling Technique

Pain arising from the long head of biceps tendon can cause significant disability of the shoulder. In young and physically demanding patients, biceps tenodesis is advised, in which the biceps tendon is cut from the native origin and fixed distally. Many methods have been proposed for this. This Technical Note describes arthroscopic biceps tenodesis in the bicipital groove by a bicortical drilling technique. The far cortex is breached only once by a guide wire, and the reamers do not breach the far cortex. The tendon is fixed in the new position using a PopLok anchor. This technique is safe and easy to perform but presents a learning curve.

[Injuries of the biceps-labrum complex : Principles, pathologies and treatment concepts]

BACKGROUND

The biceps-labrum complex is prone to acute lesions and degenerative changes due to its anatomical structure and the high load it has to endure. Pathological changes of these structures are common pain generators and can significantly impair shoulder function. Anatomically, the biceps-labrum complex can be divided into three zones: inside, junction and bicipital tunnel.

DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE

Despite the focused physical examination and advancements in imaging techniques, the exact localization of pathologies remains challenging. Arthroscopy can be used to accurately diagnose inside and junctional pathologies but extra-articular changes in the region of the bicipital tunnel can only be partially visualized.

TREATMENT

In cases of unsuccessful conservative treatment and correct indications, a high level of patient satisfaction can be surgically achieved. In young patients an anatomical reconstruction of inside lesions or tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon is performed; however, even tenotomy is a valuable option and can achieve equally satisfactory results. Unaddressed pathological changes of the bicipital tunnel can lead to persistence of pain. In clinical procedures performing tenodesis, both the different techniques and the implants used have been found to show similar results. This article describes the anatomical principles, pathological changes, the focused clinical instrumental diagnostics and discusses the different treatment philosophies as well as the outcome according to the recent literature.