Patients older than 55 years prefer biceps tenodesis over tenotomy to the same degree as young patients

Repair of Isolated Subscapularis Tears With Concurrent Biceps Tenodesis Using a Single Anchor Results in Satisfactory Clinical Outcomes: Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up

PURPOSE

To investigate the clinical outcomes of patients treated with isolated subscapularis tear repair and biceps tenodesis using a single anchor.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with subscapularis tear and who underwent arthroscopic surgery by a single surgeon between February 2017 and January 2022 were evaluated retrospectively. Inclusion criteria were patients who underwent repair of isolated subscapularis tear along with tenodesis for long head of the biceps tendon pathologies such as SLAP lesion, instability, partial tear, or tenosynovitis, with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. Assessment included active and passive range of motion, single-assessment numeric evaluation (SANE), visual analog scale (VAS), Constant-Murley score (CMS), and specific subscapularis and biceps tests. Improvements were analyzed using minimum clinically important difference (MCID) values.

RESULTS

A total of 20 patients were included. The mean age was 48.5 ± 7 years, and the follow-up period was 43.1 ± 12.7 months. Significant improvements were observed at the final follow-up in active forward flexion, active abduction, active internal rotation, as well as VAS, SANE, and CMS (P < .001). The MCID analysis showed that 100% of patients met the MCID for CMS, 90% for SANE, and 100% for VAS.

CONCLUSIONS

In the presence of an isolated subscapularis tear associated with long head of the biceps tendon pathologies, favorable clinical outcomes could be achieved by performing both tear repair and biceps tenodesis with a double-loaded single anchor. Most patients (>90%) achieved the MCID for the CMS, SANE, and VAS, indicating significant clinical improvement and satisfactory patient outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series.

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.

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.

Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Using an All-Suture Anchor

Long head biceps tendon pathology is a substantial contributor to anterior shoulder pain and often requires surgical intervention to offer a return to normal functionality. Surgical treatment options consist of both open and arthroscopic tenodesis or tenotomy of the long head biceps brachii. Several techniques exist for tenodesis and tenotomy of the biceps, although current debate continues regarding which surgical approach is the optimal intervention for symptomatic bicep pathology. In this technical note, we describe a subpectoral biceps tenodesis of the long head bicep tendon using an all-suture anchor. Our technique offers the advantages of using an all-suture anchor that incorporates a self-tensioning mechanism with direct visualization of the tendon during biceps tenodesis and anchor insertion.

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.

Current Controversies and Decision-Making in the Management of Biceps Pathologies

»

Biceps tendon pathologies include a spectrum of injuries that range from mild tendinosis to complete tendon rupture.

»

Tendinosis, the most common pathology, occurs more frequently with age and is likely related to chronic degeneration. On the other side of the spectrum of severity lies a rupture of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT), which may be accompanied by injury to the glenoid labrum.

»

Superior labral anterior-posterior (SLAP) tears are frequently associated with biceps pathology. Surgical management for injuries of the bicipital-labral complex includes biceps tenodesis or tenotomy and SLAP repair. A consensus as to which of these procedures is the optimal choice has not been reached, and management may ultimately depend on patient-specific characteristics.

»

Due to the relatively low incidence of distal biceps tendon rupture, agreement on the optimal management strategy has not been reached. Surgical repair, or reconstruction in the case of a chronic rupture, is often chosen. However, nonoperative management has also been utilized in older, less-active patients.

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.

[Effectiveness comparison of arthroscopic intertubercular groove and open subpectoral tenodesis for long head of biceps tendon tendinopathy]

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of arthroscopic intertubercular groove and open subpectoral tenodesis in treatment of long head of biceps tendon (LHBT) tendinopathy.

METHODS

A clinical data of 80 patients with LHBT tendinopathy who were admitted between June 2013 and May 2017 and met the selection criteria was retrospectively analyzed. After cutting LHBT under arthroscopy, the arthroscopic intertubercular groove tenodesis was performed in 40 cases (group A) and open subpectoral tenodesis was performed in 40 cases (group B). There was no significant difference in the gender, age, side of the affected shoulder joint, disease duration, and preoperative pain visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Constant score, American Society of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery (ASES) score, Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score, LHBT score (LHBS) between the two groups ( P>0.05). The operation time and the scores of shoulder joint pain and function at 12 months after operation were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The operation time was (3.6±2.5) minutes in group A and (8.5±2.3) minutes in group B, showing a significant difference ( t=18.584, P=0.000). The incisions of the two groups healed by first intention, and there was no complication such as infection or thrombosis. All patients were followed up. The follow-up time was 24-30 months (mean, 26.0 months) in group A and 24-31 months (mean, 26.0 months) in group B. Both Speed test and Yergason test were negative at 3 months after operation. MRI showed that there was no obvious effusion around the LHTB and no dislocation of LHTB. At 12 months after operation, the VAS score, Constant score, ASES score, DASH score, and LHBS score of the two groups all improved when compared with preoperative ones ( P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in the differences before and after operation between the two groups ( P>0.05). No Popeye sign appeared during the follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The arthroscopic intertubercular groove and open subpectoral tenodesis can effectively relieve shoulder pain and improve function, but the former has shorter operation time and less trauma.

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

Purpose

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to provide an up-to-date comparison of clinical outcomes of tenotomy and tenodesis in the surgical treatment of long head of the biceps brachii (LHB) tendinopathy.

Methods

A literature search was conducted in EMBASE, Pubmed/Medline and the Cochrane database from January 2000 to May 2020. All studies comparing clinical outcomes between LHB tenotomy and tenodesis were included. Quality was assessed using the Coleman score.

Results

We included 25 studies (8 randomized studies) comprising 2,191 patients undergoing LHB tenotomy or tenodesis, with or without concomitant shoulder procedures (mainly rotator cuff repairs). The Coleman score ranged from 29 to 97 for all studies. When comparing tenodesis and tenotomy in randomized studies, no clinically relevant differences were found in the Constant score (mean difference, 0.9 points), the American Shoulder and Elbow Society Score (mean difference, 1.1 points), shoulder pain (mean difference in visual analogue scale, -0.3 points), elbow flexion strength loss (mean difference, 0%), or forearm supination strength (mean difference, 3%). A Popeye deformity (odds ratio, 0.32) was less commonly seen in patients treated with tenodesis (9% vs 23%).

Conclusion

In our meta-analysis, a Popeye deformity was more frequently observed in patients treated with tenotomy. Based on a substantial number of studies, there is no evidence-based benefit of LHB tenodesis over tenotomy in terms of shoulder function, shoulder pain or biceps-related strength. It is unclear whether LHB tenodesis is of benefit in specific patient groups such as younger individuals.

Level of evidence

Level III, systematic review of level III or higher studies.

The "Sandwich Tenodesis": An Arthroscopic Technic for Combined Soft-Tissue and Bony Fixation of the Long Head of the Biceps

Pathology of the long head of the biceps can contribute to substantial shoulder pain. After nonoperative treatment has failed, either open or arthroscopic tenotomy or tenodesis can be recommended depending on age, occupation, function, and cosmetic preference. While classic tenodesis techniques rely on tendon-to-bone fixation, multiple studies have shown superior healing results for fixation between similar types of tissue, such as tendon-to-tendon. In this technique, we present the "sandwich technique," performed entirely arthroscopically. A single 4-strand anchor with bioabsorbable screw is used to provide 2 types of fixation. Two strands are first used to lasso-loop the long head of the biceps to the bicipital groove, providing bone-to-tendon fixation. The other strands are then used to anchor rotator interval tissue to the tendon, providing a similar tissue or tendon-to-tendon patch augmentation.

All-Arthroscopic Long Head of the Biceps Transfer: An Optional Technique for Soft-Tissue Biceps Tenodesis

Proximal tendinopathy of the long head of the biceps (LHB) is a common shoulder problem that requires surgical intervention, especially in patients with concomitant rotator cuff tears. The comparative results of biceps tenotomy and biceps tenodesis are still doubtful; both techniques show good to excellent results in terms of postoperative pain and functional outcomes. The described technique-all-arthroscopic LHB transfer-is an optional biceps tenodesis technique using all-arthroscopic soft-tissue tenodesis and arthroscopic suturing of the LHB to the short head of the biceps and coracoacromial ligament combined with release of the LHB from the bicipital groove.