Complications associated with subpectoral biceps tenodesis: low rates of incidence following surgery

The impact of biceps tenotomy/tenodesis on Popeye sign incidence and functional outcome

Background

Literature reports varied incidences and clinical relevance of Popeye's sign in patients who underwent biceps tenotomy or tenodesis. There is no consensus according to indication and outcome. We aimed to evaluate the frequency of the Popeye sign in a large cohort of patients concomitantly treated with an arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR). We assessed the effect on the clinical outcome based on biceps tendon treatment and Popeye sign.

Methods

A cohort of 973 primary ARCR patients from different Swiss and German orthopedic clinics was prospectively documented for up to 24 months postoperatively. All patients who received biceps tendon treatment were included in this study. We assessed Popeye sign occurrence across groups treated either with tenodesis or tenotomy. Additionally, we compared clinical and radiological outcome between Popeye/non-Popeye and tenotomy/tenodesis groups.

Results

Eight hundred patients were evaluated, of which 55% (n = 442) underwent tenodesis and 45% (n = 358) received tenotomy of the long head of the biceps tendon. Mean age of the tenodesis group was significantly lower than that of the tenotomy group (55 ± 9 and 61 ± 8 years, P < .001). The other demographics were comparable. Among the patients with tenotomy, 20% (n = 63) developed a Popeye sign, compared to only 6.3% (n = 25) in the tenodesis group (age-adjusted relative risk 3, 95% confidence interval 1.9-4.8; P < .001). There were no significant differences in shoulder function. The subjective shoulder value was lower in the Popeye group (82 ± 19% vs. 86 ± 15%, P = .010).

Conclusion

Patients with tenotomy of the biceps tendon are 3 times more likely to develop a Popeye sign compared to tenodesis. Popeye sign after ARCR seems to have no relevant effect on the clinical outcome and pain even though the subjective shoulder value was lower in patients with Popeye sign.

Concomitant Biceps Tenodesis Does Not Compromise Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair Outcomes

PURPOSE

To compare outcomes of patients who underwent rotator cuff repair (RCR) with concomitant biceps tenodesis with those who underwent an isolated RCR.

METHODS

Exclusion criteria included previous ipsilateral shoulder surgery, irreparable rotator cuff tears, rotator cuff arthropathy, calcific tendinitis, adhesive capsulitis requiring a capsular release, or advanced osteoarthritis of the glenohumeral joint. Patients were indicated for biceps tenodesis if they had any degree of tendon tearing, moderate-to-severe tenosynovitis, instability, or a significant degenerative SLAP tear. Primary outcome measures included American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test, EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level visual analog scale, EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level, and a site-specific questionnaire, which focused on surgical expectations, satisfaction, and complications. Multivariate analysis of variance to analyze descriptive statistics and determine significant differences between the patient groups for subjective and objective outcome measures were performed.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences for pain/visual analog scale (0.34 ± 0.09 vs 0.47 ± 0.09, P = .31), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (96.69 ± 0.87 vs 94.44 ± 0.91, P = .07), and Simple Shoulder Test (11.42 ± 0.17 vs 10.95 ± 0.18, P = .06) between the RCR with concomitant biceps tenodesis and isolated RCR at a minimum of 2 years' postoperatively. This is despite the RCR with concomitant biceps tenodesis group having significantly larger rotator cuff tears (4.25 ± 0.30 cm2 vs 2.80 ± 0.32 cm2, P = .001) than the isolated RCR group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed that concomitant biceps tenodesis does not compromise outcomes when compared with an isolated RCR at 2-year follow-up, despite this group having larger rotator cuff tears.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective case study.

Arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis utilizing the subacromial locking stitch anchor (SALSA) technique

Biceps tenodesis is an accepted treatment option for various pathologies of the long head of the biceps tendon and labrum. Many techniques have been published, both arthroscopic and open, that utilize various fixation techniques and locations of the tenodesis, yet none has been proven to be superior. We introduce a novel method, the SALSA (subacromial locking stitch anchor), an all-arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis utilizing a running locking stitch from a double-loaded biocomposite anchor. This technique provides a reliable method of multipoint fixation including the transverse humeral ligament that avoids many of the potential complications encountered with other techniques.

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.

Proximal humerus open reduction internal fixation with and without biceps tenodesis: assessment of early clinical outcomes

Background

The role of biceps tenodesis (BT) during open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) of proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) remains unclear. A subset of patients undergoing ORIF have persistent pain with unclear etiology. The purpose of our study was to compare outcomes of ORIF of PHFs with and without concomitant BT. We hypothesize patients undergoing BT at the time of ORIF will have improved patient-reported outcome scores with fewer secondary procedures related to treatment of the biceps.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, all patients undergoing ORIF for a PHF at a single level one trauma center from January 2019 to June 2022 were reviewed. Patients under the age of 18 were excluded. Primary outcomes were patient-reported outcomes measurement information system physical function, depression, and pain interference scores at 5 time points up to final follow-up. Secondary outcomes included total operative time, complications, subsequent procedures, steroid injections, and range of motion. Chi-square tests were performed for categorical values and paired t-tests for continuous variables.

Results

71 patients met inclusion criteria: 41 undergoing ORIF without BT and 30 undergoing ORIF with BT. Average follow-up was 11 months. There were no statistically significant differences in patient demographics between groups. There were no differences in patient-reported outcomes measurement information system scores at any time point postoperatively. At final follow-up patients in the ORIF with BT group had higher forward flexion than those who did not undergo BT (142 vs. 123 degrees, respectively, P < .02). There were no differences in surgical time, revision rates, postsurgical complications, or postoperative injections between groups.

Conclusion

BT performed during ORIF of PHFs did not result in significantly different functional or patient-reported outcomes between groups, except for greater forward flexion at final follow-up. Although BT was done more commonly in severe PHFs, patients in both groups had similar rates of subsequent biceps-related procedures and revision surgery.

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.

Arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis provided earlier shoulder function restoration compared with open subpectoral biceps tenodesis during the recovery phase

BACKGROUND

This study compared the clinical outcomes of open subpectoral biceps tenodesis and arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis for symptomatic biceps tenosynovitis. Although both techniques have pros and cons, no studies have compared clinical and functional outcomes during the recovery phase. Previous studies show that suprapectoral tenodesis has a higher probability of Popeye deformity and postoperative bicipital pain and stiffness, whereas subpectoral tenodesis has a higher risk of nerve complications and wound infections. This study aimed for clinical comparison between arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective review of institutional records of patients with biceps tendinitis who underwent open or arthroscopic biceps tenodesis. Surgical indications included biceps tenosynovitis, biceps partial tear, and biceps pulley lesion. Patients with prior shoulder surgery, preoperative shoulder stiffness, or full-thickness tear of rotator cuff were excluded. Tenodesis was considered when the pain recurs within 3 months despite conservative treatment including at least 2 triamcinolone injections on the biceps tendon sheath. Visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain, presence of the night pain, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Constant score, and range of motion were assessed preoperatively at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively and the last follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 72 patients (33 with arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodeses and 39 with open subpectoral biceps tenodeses) were included in analysis. At postoperative 6 months, lower VAS score (0.4 ± 0.8 vs. 1.7 ± 1.9, P < .001), and the presence of the night pain (2 [6%] vs. 14 [36%], P = .002), ASES score (89.6 ± 9.2 vs. 81.4 ± 14.6, P = .006), and Constant score (89.4 ± 5.6 vs. 82.0 ± 12.5, P = .003) compared with the subpectoral group. The mean number of postoperative steroid injections for pain control in the subpectoral group (0.51 ± 0.80) was significantly higher than that in the suprapectoral group (0.18 ± 0.40) (P = .031). However, postoperative clinical outcomes were restored similar between the 2 groups at 12 months and the last follow-up.

DISCUSSION

Arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis performed statistically better than the subpectoral biceps tenodesis for the VAS, ASES, night pain, and Constant score at postoperative 6 months. However, only night pain and the Constant score showed differences that exceeded minimum clinically important difference during the recovery phase. At postoperative 12 and 24 months, biceps tenodesis provided satisfactory clinical outcomes and pain relief regardless of the fixation technique and suture anchor location.

All-Arthroscopic Falciform Portal Biceps Tenodesis

Biceps tenodesis has been proven to be an effective treatment for biceps tendon and superior labral pathology. Many techniques including both open and arthroscopic approaches have been reported. Open techniques afford management of the entire proximal biceps tendon but are limited by wound healing issues, increased bleeding, and increased surgical time. Arthroscopic tenodesis offers benefits in terms of surgical efficiency, cosmesis, and bleeding risk. However, standard arthroscopic tenodesis only addresses intra-articular biceps pathology. In this report we describe an all-arthroscopic biceps tenodesis technique at the suprapectoral region of the humerus using knotless suture anchor fixation.

The management of the long head of the biceps in rotator cuff repair: A comparative study of high vs. subpectoral tenodesis

BACKGROUND

Tenodesis of the long head of the biceps (LHB) is commonly undertaken during arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. We assessed the clinical and structural outcomes after high arthroscopic tenodesis (HAT) or mini-open subpectoral tenodesis (ST). We hypothesized that the clinical and structural results after HAT and ST are similar.

METHODS

We included 40 patients with rotator cuff tear and LHB tendinopathy. Twenty patients (7 women and 13 men; mean age: 57.9 years; range: 56-63 years) were treated using HAT, and 20 patients (8 women and 12 men; mean age: 58.5 years; range: 55-64 years) were treated using ST. Functional evaluation was performed preoperatively and at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year after surgery, using the Constant Murley Score and Simple Shoulder Test scores; the LHB was evaluated using the LHB score. A Visual Analogue Scale was administered to all patients preoperatively and 2 days after surgery.

RESULTS

The postoperative total and pain subscale's Constant scores were significantly higher in the ST group. Moreover, 2 LHB score values were significantly different between the groups. The postoperative LHB total score in the ST and HAT groups averaged 86.9 ± 4.1 (mean ± SD) points and 73.3 ± 6.4 points, respectively. The Pain/Cramps subscale in the ST and HAT groups averaged 47.1 ± 5.9 and 33.2 ± 4.6 points, respectively. The 2 groups showed no difference in Visual Analogue Scale values (5.5 in the HAT group; 5.8 in the ST group) postoperatively. One patient in the HAT group reported a secondary onset of Popeye deformity.

CONCLUSION

Both high arthroscopic and mini-open ST of the LHB tendon produced reliably good functional results, but the ST group was associated with better postoperative clinical outcomes.

Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Using an All-Suture Knotless Anchor

The long head of the biceps tendon is a common pain generator in the anterior shoulder and is concomitantly seen with other shoulder pathology including subacromial impingement, as well as rotator cuff and labral tears. This Technical Note describes a mini-open onlay biceps tenodesis technique using all-suture knotless anchor fixation. This technique is easily reproducible, is efficient, and offers the unique benefits of providing a consistent length-tension relation and mitigating the risk of peri-implant reaction and fracture without sacrificing strength of fixation.

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.

High Rate of Return to Sporting Activity Among Overhead Athletes With Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis for Type II SLAP Tear

PURPOSE

To evaluate the functional and athletic outcomes after primary subpectoral biceps tenodesis for type II SLAP tear in overhead athletes.

METHODS

All competitive elite athletes with type II SLAP tears undergoing biceps tenodesis by a single surgeon were isolated between 2007 and 2015. Exclusion criteria were applied to individuals not involved in overhead athletics, clinical follow-up <24 months, adjacent rotator cuff or labral repair, concomitant SLAP repair, and/or previous arthroscopic shoulder surgery. Patient-reported outcome measures included visual analog scale (VAS), Kerlan Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic shoulder score, and Single Assessment Numerical Assessment. Clinical and sporting outcomes were recorded using a sports-specific questionnaire.

RESULTS

Of 22 identified patients, 16 competitive overhead athletes (72.7%; 11 men, 5 women) with a mean age of 21.0 years were available at mean 4.5-year follow-up. Baseball or softball comprised the majority of patients (n = 9; 56.3%), followed by gymnastics (n = 2), swimming (n = 2), and other sports (n = 3). At mean 4.1 months postoperatively, 13 patients (81.3%) returned to previous level of athletic activity, whereas 2 patients (12.5%) failed to return to sporting activity and 1 (6.3%) returned at a lower level of competition. VAS pain significantly decreased from an average of 4.4 preoperatively to 1.7 postoperatively (P = .002), and mean Single Assessment Numerical Assessment scores also demonstrated significant improvement (55.4-76.7; P = .008). Final mean Kerlan Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic score was 74.0 (standard deviation 25.9), including 2 patients with suboptimal outcomes due to persistent pain. There were no significant differences in mean forward flexion or rotation in either the adducted or throwing position (P > .05), although small, significant decreases in postoperative active abduction were noted (165° vs 155°; P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS

In the current series of competitive overhead athletes, 81% of patients returned to previous level of play at an average of 4.1 months postoperatively after subpectoral biceps tenodesis for symptomatic SLAP tear. Athletes reliably experienced significant decreased activity-related pain with athletic function.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, case series.

Open Subpectoral Tenodesis for Isolated Traumatic Long Head of Biceps Tendon Rupture Provides Excellent Functional Outcomes in Active Male Patients

Background: For many years the long head of biceps tendon (LHBT) rupture has been described and is commonly identified by weakness, cramping, and the so-called "Popeye" sign. Traditionally, this was treated non-operatively, likely reflecting patient factors and the technical difficulty in reattaching a degenerative and shortened tendon. In contrast, traumatic distal biceps rupture is now commonly repaired despite historically being managed non-operatively. The advent of a convenient and reproducible surgical technique led to an increase in the rate of fixation, thereby improving the cramping and weakness associated with non-operative treatment. Given recent surgical advances within this field, many techniques are now present for LHBT pathology. We describe results from a cohort of patients suffering traumatic LHBT rupture who sought a surgical solution to improve their symptoms.

Methods: Over four years, 18 male patients underwent surgical intervention for isolated traumatic LHBT rupture. The technique used involved an open subpectoral tenodesis with fixation of the LHBT into the bicipital groove. Postoperative immobilization using a sling was recommended for six weeks prior to a progressive rehabilitation program. Patients were assessed with pre- and postoperative visual analog scores (VAS) for pain and American Shoulder and Elbow Society (ASES) scores.

Results: The mean patient age at the time of surgery was 49 years (range: 26-65 years). The mean time to surgery was nine weeks (range: 2-24 weeks). All patients showed an improvement following surgery with a mean pre-op ASES score of 33 (range: 10-60) compared to a post-op score of 92.6 (range: 85-100). All patients were able to return to work and sport, with all but one returning to the same functional demand level of work. The mean pre-op pain VAS was 6.3 (out of 10) compared to 0.2 post-op. All patients had a requirement for analgesia pre-operatively and none had postoperatively. No surgical complications were observed. No correlation was observed between the time to surgery and the outcome.

Discussion: LHBT rupture is often treated non-operatively as few studies within the literature describe the surgical technique and outcomes from surgical intervention. When treated non-operatively, patients complain of pain, cramping, and cosmetic deformity known as the "Popeye" sign. Following a traumatic rupture of the LHBT, we have demonstrated excellent outcomes using a standard approach and common fixation technique that has the potential to improve the functional outcome for symptomatic patients.

Conclusion: Open subpectoral biceps tenodesis is associated with excellent outcomes in symptomatic patients following isolated LHBT rupture.

Simple Soft Tissue Biceps Tenodesis

This article describes a simple all soft tissue technique for arthroscopic long head of the biceps tenodesis to the subscapularis tendon using posterior and anterior portals. The technique uses a PDS suture that assists in passing a braided suture through both the biceps tendon and the subscapularis to allow for the desired tenodesis. This technique is simple, safe, efficient, and less costly than other techniques.

Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Biceps Tenodesis: The Best of Both Worlds

Biceps tendinopathy and superior labrum anterior posterior lesions are a common source of shoulder pain and disability and can be effectively treated with biceps tenodesis. There are a variety of open and arthroscopic tenodesis techniques, but no one technique has demonstrated superiority. Arthroscopic techniques often disregard the extra-articular portions of the biceps tendon as a potential source of pain. Open techniques address this concern; however, they can be associated with wound complications, increased blood loss, nerve injury, and disruptions to surgical workflow. Here, we describe an all arthroscopic tenodesis technique at the suprapectoral zone of the tendon. This method addresses extra-articular sources of pain, while limiting the potential pitfalls of open surgery.

The high resistance loop (H-loop) technique used for all-inside arthroscopic knotless suprapectoral biceps tenodesis: A case series

Introduction

Suprapectoral tenodesis is a common technique for the treatment of long head biceps tendon lesions. However, so far, there is no gold standard treatment in all-inside arthroscopy. The purpose of the present study was to introduce and evaluate the functional outcomes of an innovative, all-inside arthroscopic high resistance loop (H-loop, high resistance to tissue cutout and 360° grasping of the tendon) technique for long head of biceps (LHB) tenodesis.

Method

From September 2020 to March 2022, a series of cases of 32 consecutive patients (28 rotator cuff tear with LHBT pathology and 4 superior labrum anterior-posterior (SLAP) tears which including 2 type II and 2 type IV) who received LHB tenodesis using all-inside arthroscopic high resistance loop technique were included in this study. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon Score (ASES), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Simple Shoulder Test Score (SST), Constant–Murley scores, and University of California at Los Angeles Scoring System (UCLA) were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients in preoperative and final follow-up. Meanwhile, postoperative complications were also observed.

Result

32 patients (14 women and 18 men, average age was 55.7 years) underwent all-inside arthroscopic knotless suprapectoral biceps tenodesis using the H-Loop stitch technique. The mean time of follow-up was 16.2 ± 2.6 months. The ASES, VAS, Constant–Murley, SST, and UCLA scores improved from 51.5 ± 15.8, 5.5 ± 1.6, 57.8 ± 14.7, 5.0 ± 2.8, and 16.1 ± 3.8 preoperatively, to 89.1 ± 7.5, 1.0 ± 0.8, 87.3 ± 5.5, 10.4 ± 1.5, and 31.3 ± 2.6 in the last follow-up, respectively (p < 0.001). During the follow-up, no patients in this study experienced postoperative complications such as infection of the wound, injury of nerves, and hardware failure; no patients required revision after their operation. In addition, none of the patients had cramping or a “Popeye” deformity during follow-up.

Conclusion

This article presents an innovative, all-arthroscopic H-loop technique for LHB tenodesis. This technique for LHB tenodesis showed favorable functional and cosmetic outcomes, as well as high satisfaction rates. Due to its simplicity of operation and satisfactory preliminary clinical outcomes, H-loop technique is perhaps another option to choose in all-inside arthroscopic LHB tenodesis.

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.

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.

Clinical outcome comparison of suprapectoral and subpectoral tenodesis of the long head of the biceps with concomitant rotator cuff repair: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Simultaneous repairs of rotator cuff and biceps tenodesis can be managed by tenodesis of long head of biceps tendon to a subpectoral or suprapectoral area. This review investigated long head of biceps tendon tenodesis with concomitant rotator cuff repair and evaluated the clinical outcomes and incidences of complications based on tenodesis location.

METHODS

Medline, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched for published, randomized or nonrandomized controlled studies and prospective or retrospective case series with the phrases "suprapectoral," "subpectoral," "tenodesis," and "long head of biceps tendon". Those with a clinical evidence Level IV or higher were included. Non-English manuscripts, review articles, commentaries, letters, case reports, and sole long head of biceps tendon tenodesis articles were excluded.

RESULTS

From 481 studies, 13 were chosen. In total, 1194 subpectoral and 2520 suprapectoral tenodesis cases were investigated. Postoperative Constant-Murley and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons mean scores showed similar good results. In terms of complication incidences, while transient nerve injuries were more commonly seen in patients with subpectoral tenodesis, persistent bicipital pain and Popeye deformity are mostly seen in patients with suprapectoral tenodesis.

DISCUSSION

Biceps tenodesis to suprapectoral or subpectoral area with concomitant rotator cuff repair demonstrated similar outcomes. Popeye deformity and persistent bicipital pain were higher in suprapectoral area and transient neuropraxia was found to be higher in subpectoral area.Level of evidence: IV.

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.

Clinical Outcomes of Revision Biceps Tenodesis for Failed Long Head of Biceps Surgery: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

We summarize the indications, assess the modes of failure, and analyze the clinical and functional outcomes of revision biceps tenodesis after failed primary surgical treatment of long head of biceps (LHB) pathology.

METHODS

A computerized search of PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases and manual screening of selected article reference lists was performed in September 2020. Randomized controlled trial, cohort, case-control, and case series studies reporting clinical outcomes of revision biceps tenodesis following failed LHB surgery were eligible. Patient demographics, indications for revision, intraoperative findings, surgical techniques, and patient-reported outcomes were recorded. Functional assessment and pain scores were assessed and summarized as forest plots with means and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Five of 465 identified studies met inclusion criteria, encompassing 70 revision biceps tenodesis procedures with mean follow-up of 2.4-6.4 years. The failed index procedure was biceps tenodesis in 62 patients and tenotomy in 8 patients. The most common indications for revision were pain or cramping and rerupture, cited by 4 and 3 articles, respectively. After failed conservative treatment, open subpectoral revision tenodesis was performed with concomitant arthroscopic debridement in 65 of 70 cases. Common intraoperative findings at time of revision were adhesions or scarring (39.0-83.0%), fixation failure (8.7-75.0%), and biceps rupture (17.4-80.0%). Revision tenodesis patients reported good to excellent functional outcomes with improvements in Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder, and visual analog scale pain scores, and satisfaction ranged from 88.0 to 100%. All studies demonstrated moderate quality of evidence and risk of bias when critically appraised.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review of 5 moderate risk of bias studies demonstrated that the most common reasons for revision biceps tenodesis were pain or cramping and rerupture. Open subpectoral revision tenodesis with concomitant arthroscopic debridement provided improvements in functional scores with high patient satisfaction at mid-term follow up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, Systematic Review of level III and IV investigations.

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.

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.

Surgical Management of Superior Labral Tears in Athletes: Focus on Biceps Tenodesis

Superior labrum anterior-posterior (SLAP) lesions are common in overhead athletes. Though some patients have asymptomatic lesions, many tears cause pain and diminished athletic performance. Accurate diagnosis of SLAP lesions can be challenging as the sensitivity and specificity of both the physical exam and advanced imaging is questionable. Management is also difficult, as treatment can be life-altering or career-ending for many athletes. If first-line nonoperative treatment fails, surgical options may be considered. The optimal surgical management of SLAP lesions in athletes is debated. Historically, return to play (RTP) rates among athletes who have undergone arthroscopic SLAP repair have been unsatisfactory, prompting clinicians to seek alternate surgical options. Biceps tenodesis (BT) has been postulated to eliminate biceps tendon-related pain in the shoulder and is increasingly used as a primary procedure for SLAP lesions. The purpose of this text is to review the current literature on the surgical management of SLAP lesions in athletes with an emphasis on the role of BT.

Early success of the arthroscopic-assisted locked loop suprapectoral biceps tenodesis

Background

There is wide variability in surgical technique for biceps tenodesis. Prior biomechanical studies have demonstrated superior ultimate and fatigue strength with a Krakow-type locked loop when compared with simple suture and lasso-loop configurations; however, this had not yet been clinically studied. The purpose of this study was to assess the short-term results an arthroscopic-assisted locked loop (ALL) suprapectoral biceps tenodesis technique.

Methods

All patients who underwent an ALL suprapectoral biceps tenodesis by a single surgeon from 2012 and 2019 with a minimum of 12-month follow-up were analyzed. Data collected included demographics, surgical indications, concomitant operative procedures, and postoperative complications of anterior shoulder "groove" pain, "Popeye deformity," biceps muscle cramping pain, and need for revision surgery.

Results

Forty patients who underwent an ALL suprapectoral biceps tenodesis met inclusion criteria. Patients were 55.6 ± 8.6 years of age, consisting of 28 men (57%) and 21 women (43%). The median follow-up was 19.3 months. At the latest follow-up, 1 (2%) patient had anterior shoulder "groove" pain, and no patients had a Popeye deformity or biceps muscle cramping. There were no revision biceps tenodesis procedures.

Conclusion

The ALL suprapectoral biceps tenodesis technique results in a low incidence of postoperative complications. At a short-term follow-up of 1 year, no patients had reoperations or revisions for failed biceps tenodesis. Groove pain was nearly absent in this series of patients.

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.

Implant-Free Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Is Biomechanically at Higher Risk of Spiral Fracture of the Humerus Compared With Implant-Free Suprapectoral Biceps Tenodesis

Purpose

To compare the likelihood of spiral fracture of the humerus using torsional load to failure after intraosseous biceps tenodesis at the position of the arthroscopic suprapectoral tenodesis versus the subpectoral meta-diaphyseal location.

Methods

Eight matched pairs of humeri were dissected. Unicortical tenodesis holes were drilled, either at the bottom of the bicipital groove (group 1) or just below the pectoralis major tendon insertion (subpectoral) in the humeral diaphysis (group 2). Tenodesis was performed in a 7-mm bone tunnel, with suture fixation distal to this site using 2 separate 2-mm holes, secured with No. 2 polyester suture. Each humerus was potted in plaster and mounted to a hydraulic torsional load frame, consistent with previously validated models for creating humeral spiral fractures. External rotation torque was applied to each humerus distally until fracture occurred. The paired t test was used to compare the 2 groups.

Results

Fracture occurred at the subpectoral cortical drill hole in all 8 specimens in group 2. In group 1, only 2 fractures occurred through the tenodesis hole, with spiral fracture resulting in the diaphysis of the humerus in 6 of 8 specimens. Average torque to failure measured 31.35 Nm in group 1 and 25.08 Nm in group 2; the difference was statistically significant (P < .0001).

Conclusions

Subpectoral cortical drill holes for biceps tenodesis were shown to be a stress riser for humeral spiral fracture. Suprapectoral cortical drill holes were shown to be significantly less of a stress riser. The amount of torque required to fracture the humerus through the subpectoral drill holes was less than with the suprapectoral drill holes. Only 2 fractures occurred through the suprapectoral tenodesis holes, and significantly more torque was required to create these fractures.

Clinical Relevance

Clinically, the difference between suprapectoral and subpectoral tenodesis fracture potential should be considered when selecting a tenodesis location.

Sonography of the post-operative rotator cuff: normal postoperative findings, postsurgical complications and common artifacts

This review sets forth an approach to performing and interpreting shoulder ultrasound in patients with prior rotator cuff repair and presents a comprehensive review of normal expected findings, postsurgical complications and common artifacts encountered in clinical practice.

Biceps Tenodesis for Superior Labrum Anterior-Posterior Tear in the Overhead Athlete: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Superior labrum anterior-posterior (SLAP) lesion is a common shoulder injury, particularly in overhead athletes. While surgical management has traditionally consisted of SLAP repair, high rates of revision and complications have led to alternative techniques, such as biceps tenodesis (BT). While BT is commonly reserved for older nonoverhead athletes, indications for its use have expanded in recent years.

PURPOSE

To determine functional outcomes and return-to-sport rates among overhead athletes after BT for SLAP tear.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed for any articles published before July 2019. The search phrase "labral tear" was used to capture maximum results, followed by keyword inclusion of "SLAP tear" and "biceps tenodesis." Inclusion criteria included outcome studies of BT for isolated SLAP tear in athletes participating in any overhead sports, not limited to throwing alone. Abstracts and manuscripts were independently reviewed to determine eligibility. When clearly delineated, outcome variables from multiple studies were combined.

RESULTS

After full review, 8 articles met inclusion criteria (99 athletes; mean age, 19.8-47 years), with baseball and softball players the most common among them (n = 62). Type II SLAP tear was the most common diagnosis, and 0% to 44% of athletes had a failed previous SLAP repair before undergoing BT. Only 1 study included patients with concomitant rotator cuff repair. Open subpectoral BT was most commonly used, and complication rates ranged from 0% to 14%, with wound erythema, traumatic biceps tendon rupture, brachial plexus neurapraxia, and adhesive capsulitis being reported. Combined reported postoperative functional scores were as follows: American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, 81.7 to 97; 12-Item Short Form Health Survey physical, 50 to 54; visual analog scale for pain, 0.8-1.5; Kerlan Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic, 66 to 79; and satisfaction, 80% to 87%. The overall return-to-sports rate for overhead athletes was 70% (60 of 86). For studies that clearly delineated outcomes based on level of play/athlete, the combined return-to-sports rate was 69% (11 of 16) for recreational overhead athletes, 80% (4 of 5) for competitive/collegiate athletes, and 60% (18 of 30) for professionals.

CONCLUSION

BT in the overhead athlete offers encouraging functional outcomes and return-to-sports rates, particularly in the recreational athlete. It can be successfully performed as an index operation rather than SLAP repair, as well as in a younger patient population. Careful consideration should be given to elite overhead athletes, particularly pitchers, who tend to experience poorer outcomes.

The Loop Tenodesis Procedure-From Biomechanics to First Clinical Results

(1) Introduction: Several surgical therapy options for the treatment of pathologies of the long biceps tendon (LHB) have been established. However, tenotomy, as well as established tenodesis techniques, has disadvantages, such as cosmetic deformities, functional impairments and residual shoulder pain. This study presents the first clinical and structural results of the recently introduced loop tenodesis procedure for the LHB, developed to overcome these issues. (2) Methods: 37 patients (11 women, 26 men, mean age 52 years), who underwent loop tenodesis of the LHB were examined six months after surgery. For the clinical evaluation the Constant score, as well as the LHB score, were used, complemented by elbow flexion and supination strength measurements. The integrity of the tenodesis construct was evaluated indirectly by sonographic detection of the LHB in the bicipital groove. (3) Results: Both, the overall Constant score as well as the LHB score showed significant improvements six months postoperatively, as compared to the preoperative value. Fourteen patients (38%) presented an examiner-dependent upper arm deformity, although only five patients (13%) reported subjective cosmetic deformities. Both, flexion and supination strength were preserved compared to the preoperative level. In 35 patients (95%), the tenodesis in the bicipital groove was proofed sonographically. (4) Conclusion: The loop tenodesis of the LHB provides good-to-excellent overall clinical results after a short-term follow-up of six month. The incidence of cosmetic deformities was inferior compared to conventional therapy options (tenotomy and anchor tenodesis).

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.

Postoperative Knee and Shoulder

Arthroscopic surgery in the knee most commonly addresses ligament, meniscal, or articular cartilage abnormalities. Similarly, arthroscopic surgery of the shoulder most commonly addresses tendon and labral abnormalities. The expected postoperative MRI findings depend on both the procedure performed and the time since surgery. Identifying complications and failed procedures relies on both clinical and imaging evaluations.

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.

[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.

Conversion of Failed Proximal Long Head of the Biceps Tenodesis to Distal Subpectoral Tenodesis: Outcomes in an Active Population

PURPOSE

To assess failure rates and patient reported outcomes following revision of failed proximal long head of the biceps (LHB) tenodesis.

METHODS

Patients from an active-military population who underwent revision proximal (suprapectoral) to distal (subpectoral) LHB tenodesis were prospectively enrolled. Patients were included if they were between the ages of 16 and 60 years presenting after a previous biceps tenodesis with mechanical failure and clinical failure, defined as Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) or American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) <70. Exclusion criteria were concomitant rotator cuff repair or debridement, full-thickness rotator cuff tear, extensive labral tears, or any evidence of glenohumeral arthritis. Pre- and postoperative SANE and ASES were documented and analyzed.

RESULTS

From 2004 to 2010, a total of 12 patients (all male) with a mean age of 39.9 years (range, 30-54 years) were assessed at a mean follow-up time of 29 months (range, 24-38 months). Nine patients presented with a failed tenodesis construct located at the top of the bicipital groove and 9 patients had LHB tendons originally affixed with an interference screw. Diagnostic arthroscopy revealed that the majority of patients (10/12) had excessive scarring at the site of previous fixation. Mean preoperative assessments of SANE (70.4) and ASES (59.9) improved postoperatively to SANE (90.3; P < .01) and ASES (89.8; P < .01). No patients were lost due to follow-up, and there were no reported complications or failures. All patients returned to full active duty and were able to perform all required physical tests before returning to their vocation.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients presenting with symptoms following a proximal LHB tenodesis can be successfully converted to a distal (subpectoral) LHB tenodesis with favorable outcomes. Although in a small sample, there was excessive scarring and synovitis in a majority, which improved significantly when treated with a revision subpectoral tenodesis with minimal complication risk and no reported failures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV (Therapeutic case series).

High-Tensile Strength Tapes Show Greater Ultimate Failure Load and Less Stiffness Than High-Tensile Strength Sutures in a Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Porcine Model

Purpose

To compare the biomechanical properties of high-tensile strength tape and a high-tensile strength suture in subpectoral biceps tenodesis using a suture anchor in a porcine tendon model.

Methods

A total of 24 artificial composite (polymer and glass fiber) humeri and porcine flexor profundus tendons were used. Two types of suture materials, high-tensile strength sutures (group S) and high-tensile strength tapes (group T), were evaluated. After we inserted metallic suture anchors with either 2 sutures or tapes 5 cm from the superomedial corner of the greater tuberosity, a Krackow suture technique was used to secure the tendons. After a preload of 5 N for 2 minutes, a cyclic loading test from 5 to 70 N was conducted for 500 cycles. Finally, the specimen was loaded to failure at a rate of 1 mm/s.

Results

There were no significant between-group differences in elongation after cyclic loading and elongation at failure load for group S and group T (P = .977 and .630, respectively). The ultimate failure loads in group T (278.2 ± 54 N) were significantly greater than those in group S (249.4 ± 32 N) (P = .028). In contrast, the stiffness values in group T (28.5 ± 4.0 N/mm) were significantly lower than those in group S (32.3 ± 4.5 N) (P = .028). Ten specimens in group S and 8 specimens in group T failed, with tendons being cut through by the sutures, whereas the other 2 specimens in group S and 4 specimens in group T failed due to suture breakage.

Conclusions

Using high-tensile strength tapes in subpectoral biceps tenodesis using a suture anchor leads to significantly greater ultimate failure load as compared with using high-tensile strength sutures in a porcine model. Although lower levels of stiffness were found in high-tensile strength tape group, the difference in the means were not large between 2 groups.

Clinical Relevance

A strong suture–tendon structure may prevent clinical failure of a subpectoral biceps tenodesis using a suture anchor.

All-suture anchor and unicortical button show comparable biomechanical properties for onlay subpectoral biceps tenodesis

Hypothesis

The purpose of this study was to biomechanically evaluate onlay subpectoral long head of the biceps (LHB) tenodesis with all-suture anchors and unicortical buttons in cadaveric specimens.

Methods

After evaluation of bone mineral density, 18 fresh-frozen, unpaired human cadaveric shoulders were randomly assigned to 2 groups: One group received an onlay subpectoral LHB tenodesis with 1 all-suture anchor, whereas the other group received a tenodesis with 1 unicortical button. The specimens were mounted in a servo-hydraulic material testing system. Tendons were initially loaded from 5 N to 100 N for 5000 cycles at 1 Hz. Displacement of the repair constructs was observed with optical tracking. After cyclic loading, each specimen was loaded to failure at a rate of 1 mm/s.

Results

The mean displacement after cyclic loading was 6.77 ± 3.15 mm in the all-suture anchor group and 8.41 ± 3.17 mm in the unicortical button group (P = not significant). The mean load to failure was 278.05 ± 38.77 N for all-suture anchor repairs and 291.36 ± 49.69 N for unicortical button repairs (P = not significant). The most common mode of failure in both groups was LHB tendon tearing. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups regarding specimen age (58.33 ± 4.37 years vs. 58.78 ± 5.33 years) and bone mineral density (0.50 ± 0.17 g/cm² vs. 0.44 ± 0.19 g/cm²).

Conclusion

All-suture anchors and unicortical buttons are biomechanically equivalent in displacement and load-to-failure testing for LHB tenodesis. All-suture anchors can be considered a validated alternative for onlay subpectoral LHB tenodesis.

Outcomes and Complications After Primary Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Versus Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis for Superior Labral Anterior-Posterior Tears or Biceps Abnormalities: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background:

Biceps tenodesis is a surgical treatment for both superior labral anterior-posterior (SLAP) tears and long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) abnormalities. Biceps tenodesis can be performed either above or below the pectoralis major tendon with arthroscopic or open techniques.

Purpose:

To analyze the outcomes and complications comparing primary arthroscopic suprapectoral versus open subpectoral biceps tenodesis for either SLAP tears or LHBT disorders.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

A search strategy based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Meta-Analyses) protocol was used to include 18 articles (471 patients) from a total of 974 articles identified. Overall exclusion criteria included the following: non–English language, non–full text, biceps tenodesis with concomitant rotator cuff repair, review articles, meta-analyses, and case reports. Data were extracted and analyzed according to procedure type and tenodesis location: arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (295 patients) versus open subpectoral bicepts tenodesis (176 patients).

Results:

For arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis, the weighted mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score was 90.0 (97 patients) and the weighted mean Constant score was 88.7 (108 patients); for open subpectoral biceps tenodesis, the mean ASES score was 91.1 (199 patients) and mean Constant score was 84.7 (65 patients). Among the 176 patients who underwent arthroscopic biceps tenodesis, there was an overall complication rate of 9.1%. Among the 295 patients who underwent open biceps tenodesis, there was an overall complication rate of 13.5%. Both residual pain (5.7% vs 4.7%, respectively) and Popeye deformity (1.7% vs 1.0%, respectively) rates were similar between the groups. Open subpectoral biceps tenodesis had higher reoperation (3.0% vs 0.0%, respectively), wound complication (1.0% vs 0.0%, respectively), and nerve injury (0.7% vs 0.0%, respectively) rates postoperatively. A meta-analysis of 3 studies demonstrated that both methods had similar ASES scores (P = .36) as well as all-cause complication rates (odds ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.13-4.48]; P = .26).

Conclusion:

Patients undergoing arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis for either SLAP tears or LHBT abnormalities had similar outcome scores and complication rates compared with those undergoing open subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Additionally, both residual pain and Popeye deformity rates were similar between the 2 groups.

Costs, Complications, and Reoperations Associated With Primary Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair With or Without Acromioplasty and/or Biceps Tenodesis

Purpose

To evaluate the reoperations, complications, and costs up to 5 years following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) alone, with acromioplasty (acro), with biceps tenodesis (BT), or with both acro and BT.

Methods

We queried the MarketScan database to identify patients who underwent RCR from 2007 to 2016. Patients were stratified into groups based on concomitant procedures (acro and/or BT) performed on the same day as index RCR. Reoperations, complications, and costs were followed for 5 years post-index procedure. Patients without laterality codes were excluded. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to control for confounding factors.

Results

This study identified 147,838 patients (mean age, 53.1 years; standard deviation, 8.3 years) who underwent primary RCR. Patients were stratified into 4 groups: (1) RCR only, (2) RCR + acro, (3) RCR + BT, and (4) RCR + acro + BT. Patients in the RCR only group experienced the highest rate of unadjusted overall postoperative complications (17.2%) versus the other groups (RCR + acro 16.4%, RCR + BT 15.1%, RCR + acro + BT 16.2%, P < .0161). The RCR only group also experienced a significantly greater number of reoperations on the ipsilateral shoulder (P < .0001), whereas the RCR + acro + BT had the highest costs at all timepoints. In the regression analysis, there was no significant differences between complications and reoperations between any groups. After adjusting for covariates, the performance of a BT with an RCR and acromioplasty led to increased costs (odds ratio, 1.47, 1.37-1.59, P < .001).

Conclusions

Concomitant biceps tenodesis does lead to higher total healthcare costs, both in the shorter and longer terms. When adjusting for confounding factors, the performance of concomitant biceps tenodesis with rotator cuff repair does not lead to a difference in postoperative complication rate or risk for revision surgery.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, economic analysis.

Comparison between SLAP Repair and Biceps Tenodesis with Concomitant Rotator Cuff Repair in Patients Older than 45 Years: Minimum 2-Year Clinical and Imaging Outcomes

Backgroud

There is controversy over how to surgically treat symptomatic superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) tears in middle-aged patients with concomitant rotator cuff tears. The aim of the study was to compare the clinical and imaging outcomes of SLAP repair versus biceps tenodesis (BT) each combined with arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 35 patients older than 45 years who underwent arthroscopic surgery to manage concomitant SLAP tears and rotator cuff tears. In addition to ARCR, 17 patients underwent SLAP repair, whereas 18 patients underwent BT. Shoulder range of motion (ROM), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Constant score, and University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) score were used for clinical assessment. The integrity of rotator cuff repair and change of superior labrum-biceps complex were evaluated by postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Results

There was significant improvement in the pain VAS and all functional scores in both groups (p < 0.001) at a mean followup of 29.4 ± 11.4 months (range, 24–84 months) postoperatively. Shoulder ROM showed significant improvement postoperatively (p < 0.05). No significant difference in outcomes could be found between the 2 groups after surgery. The retear rate of rotator cuff repair on MRI was 11.8% in the SLAP repair group and 11.1% in the BT group.

Conclusions

In middle-aged patients with combined SLAP lesions and rotator cuff tears, both SLAP repair and BT can be safe adjuncts to ARCR.

Suprapectoral biceps tenodesis with bicortical drilling procedures: anatomic analysis of chondral and axillary nerve risk with transhumeral pin guide

BACKGROUND

Many biceps tenodesis (BT) procedures are described for treating proximal biceps pathology. Axillary nerve injury has been reported during BT using bicortical drilling techniques with variable results depending on the location. In addition, there is a risk of potential articular damage during suprapectoral BT. We sought to determine the distance between the axillary nerve and the posterior passage of a bicortical pin, as well as the risk of articular damage, and to analyze whether a lateral inclination of the pin could avoid the chondral risk during suprapectoral BT with bicortical drilling.

METHODS

Ten cadaveric shoulders were divided into 2 groups. In the first group, we determined the axillary nerve distance from the posterior exit point of 3 pins in a suprapectoral position 15 mm distal to the humeral cartilage: perpendicular, 10° caudal, and 20° caudal inclination. We measured 2 distances from the pin: to the axillary nerve and to the cartilage border. In the second group, we set one pin at the same perpendicular position and set the second pin 15° laterally tilted to determine its extra-articular passage.

RESULTS

No pin injured the nerve, whereas all pins showed a transchondral direction. The 20° caudal inclination was the nearest to the nerve (18.8 mm [95% confidence interval, 5.5-32 mm]), but the perpendicular position was the safer position (38.8 mm [95% confidence interval, 28-49.6 mm]). Tilting the pin direction 15° laterally prevented cartilage damage (P = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

Suprapectoral BT with bicortical drilling performed 15 mm distal to the humeral cartilage is a safe procedure regarding the axillary nerve. A potential humeral chondral injury could be prevented with 15° of lateral inclination of the pin guide.

Brachial Plexus Injuries Associated With Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis: A Report of Two Cases

CASE

We report 2 cases of brachial plexus injury after open subpectoral biceps tenodesis. In 1 patient, the nerves likely sustained a stretch injury related to retractor use. In the other patient, multiple nerves were severed, and we hypothesize that they were caught in a drill bit.

CONCLUSIONS

To decrease the risk of nerve injury due to traction or inadvertent wrapping of nerves in the drill bit or tenodesis screw, we recommend careful retractor use and tendon fixation techniques that use a protective sleeve during both drilling and fixation.

Suprapectoral versus subpectoral tenodesis for Long Head Biceps Brachii tendinopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Suprapectoral long head biceps (LHB) tenodesis and subpectoral LHB tenodesis are both commonly performed surgical procedures. Due to the more proximal position of the suprapectoral tenodesis site this technique may be accompanied with more postoperative pain in the bicipital groove and cramping pain in the biceps muscle. We hypothesized that subpectoral tenodesis is associated with a better clinical outcome than suprapectoral tenodesis.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in PubMed and Embase from January 2000 to July 2019 with the terms "biceps" and "tenodesis". Only comparing studies reporting on American Shoulder Elbow Score (ASES), VAS for anterior shoulder pain, Constant Murley Score (CMS), pain in the bicipital groove and Popeye deformity following suprapectoral and subpectoral tenodesis were included. Quality assessment of included articles was performed using the Coleman score.

RESULTS

Seven comparative studies with 409 patients reporting the results of LHB suprapectoral and subpectoral tenodesis were included. A significant, but clinically irrelevant difference in ASES (mean difference 2.15) p=0.01 was observed. No significant difference in CMS (mean difference 0.09), VAS for anterior shoulder pain (mean difference 0.01), Popeye deformity (odds ratio 3.19) and persistent bicipital pain (odds ratio 2.66). The Coleman score ranged between 53 and 87.

CONCLUSION

Based on this meta-analysis we found a significantly, though not clinically relevant difference in ASES in favour of subpectoral LHB tenodesis when compared with suprapectoral LHB tenodesis. Comparable results were found with regard to outcome scores, pain in the bicipital groove and avoiding a Popeye deformity.

Intra-articular arthroscopic biceps tenodesis with interference screw: clinical and isokinetic evaluation

Background

Although biceps tenodesis has been widely used to treat its pathologies, few studies looked at the objective evaluation of elbow strength after this procedure. The purpose of this study is to clinically evaluate patients submitted to long head of the biceps (LHB) tenodesis with interference screws through an intra-articular approach and analyze the results of an isokinetic test to measure elbow flexion and forearm supination strengths.

Methods

Patients who had biceps tenodesis were included in the study if they had a minimum follow-up of 24 months. Patients were excluded if they had concomitant irreparable cuff tears or previous or current contralateral shoulder pain or weakness. Postoperative evaluation was based on University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder score and on measurements of elbow flexion and supination strength, using an isokinetic dynamometer. Tests were conducted in both arms, with velocity set at 60º/s with 5 concentric-concentric repetitions.

Results

Thirty-three patients were included and the most common concomitant diagnosis were rotator cuff tear (69%) and superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) lesions (28%). The average UCLA score improved from 15.1 preoperatively to 31.9 in the final follow-up (P < .001). Isokinetic tests showed no difference in peak torque between the upper limbs. One patient had residual pain in the biceps groove. None of the patients had Popeye deformity. UCLA score and follow-up length did not demonstrate correlation with peak torque.

Conclusion

Arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis with interference screw, close to the articular margin, yielded good clinical results. Isokinetic tests revealed no difference to the contralateral side in peak torque for both supination and elbow flexion.