Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis: All-Suture Anchor Onlay Technique

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Onlay Versus Inlay Biceps Tenodesis for Long Head of Biceps Tendinopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Proximal biceps tenodesis is a common surgical treatment of tendinosis of the long head of the biceps tendon. Two of the most common techniques incorporate onlay and inlay fixation methods, which can be done arthroscopically or open and in a variety of anatomic locations. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes between onlay versus inlay humeral fixation for biceps tenodesis for long head of the biceps tendon pathology.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Only studies reporting outcomes and complications after onlay and inlay biceps tenodeses were included.

RESULTS

Six studies with a total of 418 patients (252 onlay, 166 inlay) with a mean age of 56.84 years were included. Visual analog pain scale scores, Constant score, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons shoulder score did not differ. "Popeye" deformity was found in 17 patients (7.80%) in the onlay group and in 15 patients (11.28%) in the inlay group (odds ratio, 0.28; P = 0.07). No difference in postoperative cramping or failure rates was found.

CONCLUSION

Both onlay and inlay biceps tenodeses result in improved clinical outcomes and are at low risk of Popeye deformities, with no statistically significant differences between either method. Additional studies are required to assess the clinical significance of these differences.

SLAP Repair Versus Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis for Isolated SLAP Type 2 Lesions in Overhead Athletes Younger Than 35 Years: Comparison of Minimum 2-Year Outcomes

Background:

It remains unclear if young overhead athletes with isolated superior labrum anterior-posterior (SLAP) type 2 lesions benefit more from SLAP repair or subpectoral biceps tenodesis.

Purpose:

To evaluate clinical outcomes and return to sport in overhead athletes with symptomatic SLAP type 2 lesions who underwent either biceps tenodesis or SLAP repair.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed in patients who underwent subpectoral biceps tenodesis (n = 14) or SLAP repair (n = 24) for the treatment of isolated type 2 SLAP lesions. All patients were aged <35 years at time of surgery, participated in overhead sports, and were at least 2 years out from surgery. Clinical outcomes were assessed with the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score; Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE) score; Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) score; and the 12-Item Short Form (SF-12) physical component score. Return to sport and patient satisfaction were documented. Clinical failures requiring revision surgery and complications were reported.

Results:

Preoperative baseline scores in both the tenodesis and SLAP repair groups were similar. There were no significant differences between the groups on any postoperative outcome measure: For biceps tenodesis versus SLAP repair, the ASES score was 92.7 ± 10.4 versus 89.1 ± 16.7, the SANE score was 86.2 ± 13.7 versus 83.0 ± 24.1, the QuickDASH score was 10.0 ± 12.7 versus 9.0 ± 14.3, and SF-12 was 51.2 ± 7.5 versus 52.8 ± 7.7. No group difference in return-to-sports rate (85% vs 79%; P = .640) was noted. More patients in the tenodesis group (80%) reported modifying their sporting/recreational activity postoperatively because of weakness compared with patients in the SLAP repair group (15%; P = .022). One patient in each group progressed to surgery for persistent postoperative stiffness, and 1 patient in the tenodesis group had a postoperative complication related to the index surgery.

Conclusion:

Both subpectoral biceps tenodesis and SLAP repair provided excellent clinical results for the treatment of isolated SLAP type 2 lesions, with a high rate of return to overhead sports and a low failure rate, in a young and high-demanding patient cohort. More patients reported modifying their sporting/recreational activity because of weakness after subpectoral tenodesis.

Reliable Clinical and Sonographic Outcomes of Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Using an All-Suture Anchor Onlay Technique

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical outcomes and structural integrity of primary subpectoral biceps tenodesis using an all-suture anchor onlay technique for long head of the biceps (LHB) tendon pathology.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective case series with prospectively collected data of patients who underwent primary, isolated subpectoral biceps tenodesis with a single all-suture anchor onlay fixation between March 2017 and March 2019. Outcomes were recorded at a minimum follow-up of 12 months based on assessments of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, LHB score, and elbow flexion strength and supination strength measurements. The integrity of the tenodesis construct was evaluated using ultrasound.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients were available for clinical and ultrasound examination at a mean follow-up of 18 ± 5 months. The mean ASES score significantly improved from 51.0 ± 14.2 points preoperatively to 89.8 ± 10.5 points postoperatively (P < .001). The minimal clinically important difference for the ASES score was 8.7 points, which was exceeded by 31 patients (91.2%). The mean postoperative LHB score was 92.2 ± 8.3 points. Regarding subcategories, an average of 47.2 ± 6.3 points was reached for "pain/cramps"; 26.4 ± 6.1 points, "cosmesis"; and 18.6 ± 2.6 points, "elbow flexion strength." Both elbow flexion strength and supination strength were similar compared with the nonoperated side (P = .169 and P = .210, respectively). In 32 patients, ultrasound examination showed an intact tenodesis construct, whereas 2 patients (5.9%) sustained failure of the all-suture anchor fixation requiring revision.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary subpectoral biceps tenodesis using an all-suture anchor onlay technique for pathology of the LHB tendon provides reliable clinical results and a relatively low failure rate (5.9%).

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series.

Editorial Commentary: All-Suture Anchor for Shoulder Biceps Tenodesis Results in Excellent Outcomes

Patients have a strong preference for biceps tenodesis rather than a tenotomy in both Eastern and Western countries, regardless of age, and the annual number of biceps tenodeses has significantly increased in recent years. Previous studies have supported the use of suture anchors in biceps tenodesis. All-suture anchors are also a viable option because of their comparable biomechanical properties and the lower risk of humerus fractures. Recent research has evaluated the clinical outcomes after subpectoral biceps tenodesis using all-suture anchors. Encouragingly, satisfactory clinical outcomes have been reported, making this technique more attractive in clinical practice.

Ultrasound-Guided Suprapectoral Tenodesis of the Long Head of the Biceps Brachii

When the long head of the biceps tendon is diseased, tenodesis is an appropriate treatment strategy. The specific technique used is dependent on visualization, fixation method and hardware, and tenodesis location. For suprapectoral tenodesis techniques, those that fix the tendon within or below the bicipital groove can be challenging owing to the transverse humeral ligament covering the groove. To accurately identify the biceps tendon in this area, the ligament often requires resection. Ultrasound provides surgeons with a safe and noninvasive tool to visualize the biceps tendon as it exits the bicipital groove, negating the need for unroofing and other pitfalls associated with traditional techniques. This technical note describes an ultrasound-guided suprapectoral biceps tenodesis procedure.

Arthroscopic Proximal Subpectoral Tenodesis of the Long Head of the Biceps

Biceps tenodesis is a common treatment method for biceps pathology. When tenodesis is located in intra-articular or suprapectoral areas, the biceps is fixed proximally to the zone of degeneration and inflammation, which can cause residual pain as a possible postsurgical complication. The main advantage of this method is that this technique is comparatively easy and can be performed arthroscopically. Typically, in terms of professional athletes, the best post-biceps tenodesis results are observed after undergoing subpectoral tenodesis because of the solid fixation and localization distally to any kind of biceps tendon degeneration and inflammation zone. However, subpectoral tenodesis has several disadvantages, as it is an open procedure that can lead to possible scar and hematoma formation, infection, bioabsorbable screw reaction, neurovascular injury, and fractures. Soft-tissue tenodesis to the proximal part of pectoralis major tendon is a well-known step in shoulder arthroplasty surgery and shows acceptable results. We suggest a technique of proximal subpectoral arthroscopic tenodesis, which combines the advantages of the location in the subpectoral zone with an all-suture anchor and that of soft-tissue tenodesis to the pectoralis major tendon, which can be performed fully arthroscopically, improving results in terms of healing by increasing the contact area.