Tenotomy or Tenodesis for Tendinopathy of the Long Head of the Biceps Brachii: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Biceps tenotomy vs. tenodesis: an ACS-NSQIP analysis of postoperative outcomes and utilization trends

Background

While studies have assessed comparative rates of restoration of shoulder function and alleviation of symptoms, comparative systemic postoperative complication rates between biceps tenotomy and tenodesis have yet to be assessed. The purpose of the present study was to use a national administrative database to perform a comprehensive investigation into 30-day complication rates after biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis, thus providing valuable insights for informed decision-making by clinicians and patients regarding the optimal surgical approach for pathologies of the long head of the biceps tendon.

Methods

The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried to analyze postoperative complication rates and metrics associated with biceps tenotomy and tenodesis. Patient data spanning from 2012 to 2021 was extracted, with relevant variables assessed to identify and compare these two surgical approaches. Adjusted and unadjusted analyses were utilized to analyze patient demographics, comorbidities, operative times, lengths of stay, readmissions, adverse events, and yearly surgical volume, along with trends in usage, across cohorts.

Results

Of 11,527 total patients, 264 (2.29%), 6826 (59.22%), and 4437 (38.49%) underwent tenotomy, tenodesis with open repair, and tenodesis with arthroscopic repair, respectively. Tenotomy operative times ([mean ± SD]: 66.25 ± 44.76 minutes) were shorter than those for open tenodesis (78.83 ± 41.82) and arthroscopic tenodesis (75.98 ± 40.16). Conversely, tenotomy patients had longer hospital days (0.88 ± 4.86 days) relative to open tenodesis (.08 ± 1.55) and arthroscopic tenodesis (.12 ± 2.70). Multivariable logistic regression controlling for demographics and comorbidities demonstrated that patients undergoing tenodesis were less likely to be readmitted (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.17-0.98, P = .050) or sustain serious adverse events (AOR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.13-0.57, P < .001), but equally likely to sustain minor adverse events (AOR: 0.87, CI: 0.21-3.68, P = .850), compared with patients undergoing tenotomy. Lastly, comparing utilization rates from 2012 to 2021 revealed a significant decrease in the proportion of tenotomy (from 6.2% to 1.0%) compared to open tenodesis (from 41.0% to 57.3%) and arthroscopic tenodesis (52.8% to 41.64%; P trend = .001).

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this is the first large national database study investigating postoperative complication rates between the various surgical treatments for pathologies of the long head of the biceps tendon. Our results suggest that tenodesis yields fewer serious adverse events and lower readmission rates than tenotomy. We also found a shorter operative time for tenotomy. These findings support the increased utilization of tenodesis relative to tenotomy in recent years.

Open Biceps Tenodesis and Tenotomy Have Low 30-Day Postoperative Complication Rates

Purpose

To compare 30-day postoperative rates of adverse events, particularly infection rates, between open biceps tenodesis and biceps tenotomy.

Methods

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was filtered using Current Procedural Terminology codes to identify patients undergoing open biceps tenodesis and tenotomy from 2010 to 2021. Patients were divided into cohorts based on procedure type. Propensity score matching was used to account for confounding variables. Statistical analyses were conducted to compare 30-day postoperative outcomes between cohorts, as well as to evaluate secondary risk factors for complications.

Results

Overall, 12,367 patients were included in the study with 11,417 undergoing open biceps tenodesis and 950 undergoing biceps tenotomy. After matching, 1,900 patients were included in the final analysis. The rate of outpatient procedures in the tenodesis cohort was significantly higher than in the tenotomy cohort. Rates of any adverse event (AAE), sepsis, pneumonia, reoperation, and extended length of stay (LOS) were significantly higher in the tenotomy cohort compared with the tenodesis cohort. There was no difference in infection rates or wound dehiscence between the 2 groups. After multivariable analysis, increasing age, longer operative time, and history of bleeding disorders were associated with significantly higher odds of developing AAE.

Conclusions

In this study, we found that tenotomy and open tenodesis are both safe options for treatment of biceps pathology. The overall rate of developing AAE and the rate of postoperative sepsis were higher in the tenotomy cohort. In addition, rates of postoperative infection and wound dehiscence did not vary between the 2 groups. Small differences were additionally observed in rates of pneumonia, return to the operating room, and extended LOS, and these rates were higher in the tenotomy cohort.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Return to Sports and Clinical Results After All-Arthroscopic Biceps Tenodesis Using a 2.7-mm Knotless PEEK Suture Anchor

Background

The long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) is a well-known source of pain in the shoulder, especially in active patients.

Purpose

To evaluate the outcomes and return-to-sports rate after all-arthroscopic suprapectoral tenodesis of the LHBT using a small knotless anchor.

Study Design

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

In this retrospective study, 27 patients-who underwent all-arthroscopic tenodesis of the LHBT using a 2.7-mm knotless polyether ether ketone anchor-were evaluated. Sports activities, the return-to-sports rate, and other sports-related parameters (eg, pain during sports, level of sports) were examined. Sports-related data, the Constant score with isometric force (at 90° of abduction in the scapular plane), the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) score, the visual analog scale (VAS) score for satisfaction, range of motion, and the presence of a Popeye deformity were assessed at a mean follow-up of 15.3 ± 8.7 months. The data were initially analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Results

The postoperative ASES, Constant, and SST scores were 81.61, 85.74 and 8.85, respectively. Of the 27 patients, 4 patients (14.8%) showed a Popeye deformity. Preoperatively, 25 patients (92.6%) participated regularly in some type of sports activity. All 25 patients (100.0%) were able to return to sports activities after surgery. 24 (96.0%) returned to the same level preoperatively, with 88.0% (22/25) within 6 months. Patient satisfaction with the outcome was high (VAS score: 2.15 ± 2.78). Neither bicipital groove pain nor cramping was reported. There were no signs of osteolytic bone around the anchor or a fracture of the humeral bone.

Conclusion

Our clinical results after using a 2.7-mm knotless anchor for LHBT tenodesis as well as the return-to-sports rate were satisfying. Using an anchor this size can lower the risk of cortical bone damage and therefore the risk of fractures of the humeral head while still enabling patients to perform at a high level.

Cost-Effective, Implant-Free, All-Suture Modified Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Technique

Tendinopathy and partial tears of the long head of the biceps tendon are a common cause of anterior shoulder pain and are often associated with many other shoulder pathologies. Multiple open and arthroscopic tenodesis techniques exist in the literature, with varying locations along the proximal humerus and a multitude of different implants. This article describes a cost-effective, implant-free, subpectoral biceps tenodesis technique that can be used as open or in conjunction with arthroscopy. Our technique differs from other tunnel techniques in its modified docking configuration into the intraosseous canal, decreasing stresses at the bone-tendon interface. With the cost amounting to 5% to 10% of techniques using implants, this is a cost-saving and reliable option for tenodesis.

One-Step Release Technique for Tendon Extraction During Biceps Tenodesis

All biceps tenodesis techniques involving extra-articular tendon preparation consist of 2 distinct steps for tenotomy and tendon grasping. These 2 maneuvers are performed by different instruments. A single-step tendon release technique is described for both arthroscopic and open shoulder surgery. This technique finds application in arthroscopic proximal suprapectoral tenodesis, open treatment of proximal humerus fractures, and suprapectoral mini-open tenodesis. Herein, we describe an arthroscopic biceps tenodesis technique that combines the actions of cutting and gripping the tendon in a single step.

Modified arthroscopic intra-articular transtendinous looped biceps tenodesis leads to satisfactory functional outcomes and less frequent Popeye deformity compared to biceps tenotomy

PURPOSE

The present study aimed to propose a modified intra-articular transtendinous looped biceps tenodesis (mTLBT) using a suture anchor and to compare the functional outcomes and incidence of Popeye deformities between biceps tenotomy and mTLBT.

METHODS

Medical records of patients who underwent either tenotomy or mTLBT for the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) lesion between January 2016 and April 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. The inclusion criteria were patients aged 40-70 years with LHBT pathologies, such as superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) lesions > type II, LHBT pulley system rupture with bicipital instability, and intra-articular LHBT tear. The exclusion criteria were full-thickness supraspinatus tears, frozen shoulder, shoulder fracture, and postoperative traumatic events that affected the operated shoulder. All patients were followed up for at least 1 year. Popeye deformity, bicipital cramping pain, visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, and functional outcome scores (University of California at Los Angeles [UCLA] and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES] scores) were recorded. Fisher's exact test and Chi-square test were used for categorical variables, whereas the Mann-Whitney U test was used for nonparametric variables.

RESULTS

The mTLBT and tenotomy groups included 15 and 40 patients, respectively. The incidence of Popeye deformity and biceps cramping pain in the tenotomy group (52.5% and 50%, respectively) was significantly higher than that in the mTLBT group (13.3% and 20%, respectively) (p = 0.009 and p = 0.045, respectively). The postoperative VAS, UCLA, and ASES scores were not significantly different between the two groups. One patient in the tenodesis group experienced metallic-anchor pullout.

CONCLUSION

mTLBT is an arthroscopic intra-articular top of the groove tenodesis that can be performed completely in the intra-articular space and is especially suitable for patients with an intact or partially torn rotator cuff. This technique is reliable for treating biceps pathologies as it results in similar functional outcome scores, lesser biceps cramping pain, and less frequent Popeye deformity compared to biceps tenotomy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

PRE-REGISTRATION

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

Biceps Tenodesis Better Improves the Shoulder Function Compared with Tenotomy for Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Lesions: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

Surgical options for long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) lesions include tenotomy and tenodesis. This study aims to determine the optimal surgical strategy for LHBT lesions with updated evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

Literature was retrieved from PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Web of Science on 12 January 2022. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical outcomes of tenotomy and tenodesis were pooled in the meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs with 787 cases met the inclusion criteria, and were included in the meta-analysis. Constant scores (MD, -1.24; p = 0.001), improvement of Constant scores (MD, -1.54; p = 0.04), Simple Shoulder Test (SST) scores (MD, -0.73; p = 0.03) and improvement of SST (p < 0.05) were significantly better in patients with tenodesis. Tenotomy was associated with higher rates of Popeye deformity (OR, 3.34; p < 0.001) and cramping pain (OR, 3.36; p = 0.008]. No significant differences were noticed between tenotomy and tenodesis regarding pain (p = 0.59), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score (p = 0.42) and its improvement (p = 0.91), elbow flexion strength (p = 0.38), forearm supination strength (p = 0.68) and range of motion of shoulder external rotation (p = 0.62). Subgroup analyses showed higher Constant scores in all tenodesis types and significantly larger improvement of Constant scores regarding intracuff tenodesis (MD, -5.87; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

According to the analyses of RCTs, tenodesis better improves shoulder function in terms of Constant scores and SST scores, and reduces the risk of Popeye deformity and cramping bicipital pain. Intracuff tenodesis might offer the best shoulder function as measured with Constant scores. However, tenotomy and tenodesis provide similar satisfactory results for pain relief, ASES score, biceps strength and shoulder range of motion.

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.

Outcomes of Biceps Tenotomy Versus Tenodesis During Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: An Analysis of Patients From a Large Multicenter Database

Background:

Studies to date evaluating biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis in the setting of concomitant rotator cuff repair (RCR) have demonstrated relatively equivalent pain and functional outcomes.

Hypothesis:

It was hypothesized that a significant difference could be demonstrated for pain and functional outcome scores comparing biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis in the setting of RCR if the study was adequately powered.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

The Arthrex Surgical Outcomes System database was queried for patients who underwent arthroscopic biceps tenotomy or tenodesis and concomitant RCR between 2013 and 2021; included patients had a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. Outcomes between treatment types were assessed using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder (ASES), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) scores preoperatively and at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively. Results were stratified by age at surgery (3 groups: <55, 55-65, >65 years) and sex.

Results:

Overall, 1936 primary RCRs were included for analysis (1537 biceps tenodesis and 399 biceps tenotomy patients). Patients who underwent tenotomy were older and more likely to be female. A greater proportion of female patients aged <55 years and 55 to 65 years received a biceps tenotomy compared with tenodesis (P = .012 and .026, respectively). All scores were comparable between the treatment types preoperatively and at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively. At 2-year follow-up, patients who received a biceps tenodesis had statistically more favorable ASES, SANE, VAS pain, and VR-12 scores (P ≤ .031); however, the differences did not exceed the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for these measures.

Conclusion:

Our findings indicate that surgeons are more likely to perform a biceps tenotomy in female and older patients. Biceps tenodesis provided improved pain and functional scores compared with tenotomy at 2-year follow-up; however, the benefit did not exceed previously reported MCID for the outcome scores. Both procedures provided improvement in outcomes; thus, the choice of procedure should be a shared decision between the surgeon and patient.

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.