A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Comparing Clinical Outcomes After Concurrent Rotator Cuff Repair and Long Head Biceps Tenodesis or Tenotomy

Biceps Rerouting Regardless of a Biceps-Labral Lesion During Rotator Cuff Repair Results in Lower Retear Rates and Comparable Clinical Outcomes to Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the radiographic and clinical outcomes when rerouting a pathologic biceps during arthroscopic rotator cuff repair by comparing it with concomitant subpectoral biceps tenodesis (SPBT).

METHODS

This retrospective, historical cohort study was conducted with patients who underwent an arthroscopic repair of a full-thickness rotator cuff tear, with intraoperative confirmation of biceps pathology including partial tears, subluxation, pulley lesions, or type II SLAP lesions. Until May 2018, such patients were treated with concomitant subpectoral tenodesis (group SPBT). Afterward, biceps rerouting (BR) was done regardless of biceps pathology (group BR) without biceps or SLAP repair. Radiographic parameters, including fatty degeneration, acromiohumeral distance, Sugaya classification, and retears, were evaluated using preoperative and 1-year postoperative magnetic resonance imaging results. Clinical evaluation with a minimum 2-year follow-up included pain visual analog scale, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Simple Shoulder Test, and Constant-Murley scores. Whether individual patients exceeded these scores' minimal clinically important difference also was determined.

RESULTS

A total of 64 patients (group SPBT = 32; group BR = 32) were included in the final analysis. The duration of clinical follow-up was 36.2 ± 9.3 months in group SPBT and 29.4 ± 6.9 months in the BR group (P = .002). Compared with group SPBT, group BR demonstrated a significantly lower retear rate (SPBT vs BR: 34.4% vs 12.5%, P = .039). In the BR group, 8 of 32 (25%) patients demonstrated a postoperative LHBT tear. The 4 cuff retears in group BR only took place within these patients. Other postoperative radiographic and clinical outcomes were comparable between the groups. Within each group, significant postoperative improvements were demonstrated (P < .05 for all clinical scores).

CONCLUSIONS

Even in the presence of a pathologic LHBT and/or a type II SLAP lesion, augmenting the rotator cuff repair with BR significantly reduced retear rates while achieving clinical scores comparable with SPBT in a minimum 2-year follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Biceps tenotomy vs. tenodesis in patients undergoing transtendinous repair of partial thickness rotator cuff tears

Background

Patients with partial thickness rotator cuff tears (PTRCTs) often present with concurrent pathology of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT). To address both conditions simultaneously, long head of the biceps (LHB) tenotomy or tenodesis can be performed at the time of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR). This study aims to compare postoperative shoulder active range of motion (AROM) and complications following transtendinous RCR with concurrent LHB tenodesis or tenotomy.

Methods

A total of 90 patients with PTRCTs met inclusion criteria for this study. Patients who underwent tear-completion-and-repair, revision surgery, or open repair of the LHB tendon were excluded. Patients were stratified into tenotomy, arthroscopic suprapectoral tenodesis, or no biceps operation cohorts and were propensity matched 1:1:1 on age, sex, body mass index, and smoking status. Primary outcome measures included AROM in forward flexion, abduction, external rotation, and internal rotation at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months postoperatively. The development of severe stiffness and rates of rotator cuff retear at final follow-up were recorded as secondary outcomes.

Results

When comparing the tenotomy and tenodesis cohorts, tenotomy patients were found to have increased AROM at 3 months in forward flexion (153.2° vs. 130.1°, P = .004), abduction (138.6° vs. 114.2°, P = .019), and external rotation (60.4° vs. 43.8°, P = .014), with differences in forward flexion remaining significant at 6 months (162.4° vs. 149.4°, P = .009). There were no significant differences in interval rates of recovery in any plane between cohorts. Additionally, there were no significant differences in rates of symptomatic retears between groups (P = .458). Rates of severe postoperative stiffness approached but did not achieve statistical significance between tenotomy (4.2%) and tenodesis (29.2%) cohorts (P = .066). Smoking status was a significant predictor of severe stiffness (odds ratio, 13.69; P = .010).

Conclusion

Despite significant differences in absolute AROM between cohorts, the decision to perform tenotomy or tenodesis was not found to differentially affect rates of AROM recovery for patients undergoing arthroscopic transtendinous RCR for PTRCT. Notably, however, transient stiffness complications were more commonly observed in smokers, and data trends suggested an increased risk of stiffness for patients undergoing LHB tenodesis. Overall, postoperative stiffness is likely multifactorial and attributable to both patient- and procedure-specific factors, and LHB tenotomy may be more appropriate for patients with risk factors for developing stiffness postoperatively.

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.

Tenotomy or tenodesis versus conservation of the long head of the biceps tendon in the repair of isolated supraspinatus tears: A systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Few studies have directly compared the outcomes of rotator cuff repair (RCR) with or without concomitant LHBT tenotomy or tenodesis. The aim of this literature review was to assess: (i) whether an adjuvant procedure on the LHBT at the time of RCR gives better functional results than RCR alone; and (ii) whether reoperation rates are higher after RCR alone or RCR+tenotomy or tenodesis.

METHODS

A literature search was carried out on PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane database for papers published in English or French between 1st January, 2010, and 31st December, 2021. Included studies compared the results of RCR alone with RCR+concomitant tenotomy or tenodesis in patients with tears of the supraspinatus tendon or rotator cuff.

ARTICLES

A total of 626 articles were identified in the literature search and 168 were retained for more detailed examination. Forty-seven articles were read in their entirety and nine articles comparing RCR with or without concomitant tenotomy or tenodesis of the LHBT were retained for the analysis.

RESULTS

Nine articles comparing the results of RCR alone versus RCR+LHBT tenotomy or tenodesis were reviewed. The majority of patients were more than 50 years old and male. The rate of lesions to the LHBT in the studies included ranged from 26.8-60.2%. Eight of the nine studies compared the functional results of RCR alone versus RCR+tenotomy or tenodesis, with six reporting no significant difference, one reporting better outcomes after concomitant biceps surgery and one reporting worse outcomes after a biceps procedure.

DISCUSSION

This review did not provide a strong answer to our questions, owing to the heterogenicity of clinical evaluation and low level of evidence of the studies. However, it appears that in the absence of biceps pathology or in the presence of small lesions, the LHBT could be preserved. The rate of revision did not seem to be higher and cuff healing lower in this situation. Therefore, further randomized studies are required to identify the role of concomitant procedure of the biceps in case of small isolated supraspinatus repair.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III; systematic review.

External to internal glenohumeral strength ratio in non-traumatic rotator cuff pathologies

Background and study aims

A correct agonist -antagonist strength relationship for shoulder external and internal rotation is necessary for functional stability of the shoulder. This strength relationship is described by the ratio of external to internal strength (ER/IR).The aim of this stydy is to produce comparative data as regards the ER/IR ratio in subjects with different non-traumatic rotator cuff diseases.

Design and setting

A cross-sectional study in an outpatient clinic in a tertiary care university hospital.

Methods

In 55 subjects with rotator cuff disease (confirmed by physical examination and assessed by ultrasound and magnetic resonance arthrography), the ER/IR ratio of the shoulder was isometrically measured with a hand-held dynamometer and compared with values pertaining to the unaffected shoulder of the same individuals.

Results

The mean ER/IR values in the overall group were 0.89 (SD 0.18) and 0.94 (SD 0.22) for the affected and unaffected shoulders, respectively. The ratio was 0.87 (SD 0.23) in patients with subdeltoid bursitis, 0.88 (SD 0.16) in rotator cuff tendinopathy and 0.87 (SD 0.22) in patients with rotator cuff tears.

Conclusions

The ER/IR ratio appears to be similar between the affected and unaffected shoulders of subjects with nontraumatic cuff pathologies.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

PRE-REGISTRATION

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

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.

The Transosseous Cerclage In Situ Technique for Biceps Tenodesis

There are many techniques described for biceps tenodesis that vary by fixation type, location, and open or arthroscopic method. Clinical outcomes are similar regardless of repair technique; therefore, the cost and time of procedures are increasingly points of improvement to practice value-based medicine and deliver cost-effective care. The technique described in this article builds on previous arthroscopic transosseous technical knowledge to yield a cost-effective and efficient clinical method to perform biceps tenodesis in the suprapectoral location without the cost and complications of an implant. In addition, this technique provides 4 methods of tenodesis in series, which serves to decrease the risk of mechanical failure and leverages the robust method of suture cerclage for capture of the biceps.

Editorial Commentary: Shoulder Biceps Tenodesis Versus Tenotomy: Both Show Good Results and Have Different Indications

Shoulder long head biceps pathology is one of the most common causes of shoulder pain. The fact that there are many surgical techniques available has led to discussion of which should be the best treatment; although, in general terms, the two main options are tenotomy or tenodesis. Tenotomy is a simple technique, with a low rate of complications and a very good cost-benefit ratio, faster recovery, and less use of narcotic pain medications. Tenodesis has a lower risk of "Popeye deformity" and theoretically better biomechanics and strength, but few studies confirm superior outcomes in cases of biceps disease without concomitant lesions. In addition, there is no consensus as to which technique provides the best result: open or arthroscopic technique, subpectoral or fixation in the bicipital groove, soft tissue, or bony fixation. Generally, all techniques function at least two years after the surgery. We indicate arthroscopic suprapectoral bone tenodesis fixed with a screw in very selected cases: 20 patients <50 years old with good bone quality and engaged in work or sports that require flexion and supination strength. On the other hand, in chronic rupture with Popeye deformity and pain after rehabilitation, we perform open subpectoral tenodesis due to residual retraction, making suprapectoral fixation impossible or overtensioned. The correct length-tension of the long head biceps during tenodesis is critical; inappropriate tensioning can result in undesirable outcomes.

Evaluation of Rotator Cuff Repair With and Without Concomitant Biceps Intervention: A Retrospective Review of Patient Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Biceps tendon pathology is common in patients with rotator cuff tears. Leaving biceps pathology untreated in rotator cuff repairs (RCRs) may lead to suboptimal outcomes.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The purpose was to compare clinical outcomes between patients who underwent isolated RCR versus patients who underwent RCR with concomitant biceps treatment. It was hypothesized that there would be no difference in clinical outcomes between groups.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A total of 244 patients who underwent RCR in 2016 were included. Patient characteristics, presence of concomitant biceps pathology, pre- and postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, rotator cuff failure, revision surgery, and complications were recorded.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between patients who underwent isolated RCR (n = 143) and those who underwent RCR with biceps treatment (n = 101) at 2 years postoperatively in ASES scores (RCR, 81.5; RCR+biceps treatment, 79.5; P = .532), cuff failure rate (5.6% vs 4.0%; P = .760), revision RCR rate (3.5% vs 2.0%; P = .703), or complication rate (11.9% vs 5.0%; P = .102). Furthermore, when comparing concomitant biceps tenotomy (n = 30) versus concomitant biceps tenodesis (n = 71), there were no differences in ASES scores (P = .149), cuff failure rate (P > .999), revision RCR rate (P > .999), or complication rate (P > .999) postoperatively. Finally, when comparing arthroscopic biceps tenodesis (n = 50) versus subpectoral biceps tenodesis (n = 21), there were no differences in ASES scores (P > .592), cuff failure rate (P > .999), revision RCR rate (P = .507), or complication rate (P > .999) 2 years postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Addressing biceps pathology when performing RCR resulted in similar rates of cuff failure, revision RCR, and complications, as well as a similar improvement in patient-reported outcomes when compared with isolated RCR at 2 years postoperatively. Furthermore, when comparing tenotomy versus tenodesis and arthroscopic versus subpectoral tenodesis, comparable outcomes with regard to rate of rotator cuff repair failure, revision RCR, complications, and patient-reported outcomes were found.

Tenodesis yields better functional results than tenotomy in long head of the biceps tendon operations-a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Pathology of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) is a common disorder affecting muscle function and causing considerable pain for the patient. The literature on the two surgical treatment methods (tenotomy and tenodesis) is controversial; therefore, our aim was to compare the results of these interventions.

Methods

We performed a meta-analysis using the following strategy: (P) patients with LHBT pathology, (I) tenodesis, (C) tenotomy, (O) elbow flexion and forearm supination strength, pain assessed on the ten-point Visual Analog Scale (VAS), bicipital cramping pain, Constant, ASES, and SST score, Popeye deformity, and operative time. We included only randomized clinical trials. We searched five databases. During statistical analysis, odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively, using the Bayesian method with random effect model.

Results

We included 11 studies in the systematic review, nine of these were eligible for the meta-analysis, containing data about 572 patients (279 in the tenodesis, 293 in the tenotomy group). Our analysis concluded that tenodesis is more beneficial considering 12-month elbow flexion strength (WMD: 3.67 kg; p = 0.006), 12-month forearm supination strength (WMD: 0.36 kg; p = 0.012), and 24-month Popeye deformity (OR: 0.19; p < 0.001), whereas tenotomy was associated with decreased 3-month pain scores on VAS (WMD: 0.99; p < 0.001). We did not find significant difference among the other outcomes.

Conclusion

Tenodesis yields better results in terms of biceps function and is non-inferior regarding long-term pain, while tenotomy is associated with earlier pain relief.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00264-022-05338-9.

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.

Can a Two Simple Stitches Method Provide Secure Fixation Strength in Biceps Tenodesis?: Biomechanical Evaluation of Various Suture Techniques

Background

The purpose of this study was to compare the initial fixation strength between four different suture methods for the long head of the biceps.

Methods

Forty-eight fresh frozen porcine flexor hallucis longus tendons (mean width at suture site, 8.5 ± 0.9 mm) and phalanx bones were randomly assigned to one of the four arthroscopic biceps tenodesis techniques: simple stitch (SS), mattress suture (MS), lasso-loop (LL), and two simple stitches (2SS). A biceps tenodesis was performed according to the four techniques using all-suture type suture anchors (1.9-mm SUTUREFIX anchor with No. 1 ULTRABRAID sutures). Biomechanical evaluations were performed to test load to failure (N), stiffness (N/mm), stress (N/m²), and mode of failure.

Results

As for the SS, MS, LL, and 2SS, the mean load to failure was 50.9 ± 14.61 N, 82.3 ± 24.8 N, 116.2 ± 26.7 N, and 130.8 ± 22.5 N (p < 0.001), respectively; mean stiffness was 6.1 ± 1.3 N/mm, 6.7 ± 2.6 N/mm, 7.8 ± 1.4 N/mm, and 8.1 ± 4.2 N/mm, respectively (p = 0.258); and mean stress was 0.7 ± 0.3 N/m², 1.4 ± 0.8 N/m², 2.9 ± 0.7 N/m², and 2.7 ± 0.8 N/m², respectively (p < 0.001). All the failures happened by the suture cutting through the tendon along its longitudinal fibers.

Conclusions

Neither the SS nor the MS method was enough to securely fix the biceps tendon with a significantly lower mechanical strength; however, the 2SS method showed similar initial fixation strength as the LL technique.

Biceps tenotomy or tenodesis in association with rotator cuff repair: is there an influence on functional results? A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Instability or tears of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) may be present in more than 35% of rotator cuff repairs (RCR).

OBJECTIVE

To compare clinical results from patients undergoing arthroscopic RCR, according to the procedure performed at the LHBT.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Retrospective cohort study designed at the shoulder and elbow clinic of Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital das Clinicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brazil.

METHODS

Functional results among patients were compared using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) scales, according to the LHBT approach adopted: no procedure, tenotomy or tenodesis.

RESULTS

We evaluated 306 shoulders (289 patients): 133 underwent no procedure at the LHBT, 77 tenotomy and 96 tenodesis. The ASES scale at 24 months showed no difference (P = 0.566) between the groups without LHBT procedure (median 90.0; interquartile range, IQR 29), tenotomy (median 90.0; IQR 32.1) or tenodesis (median 94.4; IQR 22.7); nor did the UCLA scale (median 33; IQR 7 versus median 31; IQR 8 versus median 33; IQR 5, respectively, P = 0.054). The groups differed in the preoperative functional assessment according to the ASES and UCLA scale, such that the tenodesis group started from higher values. However, there was no difference in pre and postoperative scores between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Tenodesis or tenotomy of the LHBT, in the sample analyzed, did not influence the clinical results from RCR, as assessed using the ASES and UCLA scales.

[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.

Expression of Substance P and Nerve Growth Factor in Degenerative Long Head of Biceps Tendon in Patients with Painful Rotator Cuff Tear

Purpose

Degenerative long head of biceps tendon (LHBT) has been recognized as a notable pain source in patients with rotator cuff tear (RCT). Tenotomy or tenodesis of LHBT is frequently indicated together with arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) aiming for complete pain relief; however, it has not been fully investigated whether resected LHBT is really a source of pain. The purpose of this study was to investigate expression levels of pain-associated mediators in LHBT and its association with preoperative pain profiles.

Methods

Twenty-seven RCT patients who underwent ARCR with LHBT resection were included. Each LHBT was resected due to its abnormal arthroscopic findings including tenosynovitis, hypertrophy, and partial tear. Worst macroscopic lesion of the LHBT was obtained, and expression levels of substance P (SP) and nerve growth factor (NGF) were evaluated using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Ten healthy knee flexor tendons were analyzed as non-degenerative samples. Preoperatively, subjective shoulder pain VAS and pain duration were investigated. Conventional LHBT pain provocation tests (Speed, Yergason, O’Brien) were performed. Pressure pain threshold (PPT) of bilateral LHBT on the groove was recorded.

Results

Levels of SP and NGF expression were significantly higher compared with non-degenerative tendons (P<0.01). Shoulder pain VAS and pain duration were not directly associated with SP and NGF expression level. Patients with positive O’Brien test expressed greater SP than negative patients (P=0.001). Significant negative correlation between the PPT ratio (ipsilateral/contralateral) and SP expression level was observed (r=−0.453, P=0.034).

Conclusion

Greater expression of SP and NGF in degenerative LHBT supported our hypothesis that it would be a pain source in RCT patients. SP was likely to be expressed highly in patients with localized pressure pain hypersensitivity and positive O’Brien test (ie, altered mechanistic pain profile of LHBT), which may help when considering simultaneous LHBT resection during ARCR.

Clinical Registration

UMIN000023943.

Does Biceps Tenotomy or Tenodesis Have Better Results After Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although tenotomy and tenodesis are frequently used for long head of the biceps tendon lesions, controversies remain as to which technique is superior regarding pain, functionality, complications, and cosmetic appearance.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) For long head of biceps tendon lesions, does tenotomy or tenodesis result in greater improvements in VAS score for pain? (2) Which approach has superior results when evaluating function outcome (Constant) scores? (3) Does tenotomy or tenodesis have fewer complications? (4) Does tenotomy or tenodesis result in better cosmesis (Popeye sign)?

METHODS

A systematic review was performed in the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Literatura Latino Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS) using the keywords "long head of the biceps tendon," "biceps tenodesis," and "tenotomy." We completed the search in June 2020. The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials and quasirandomized controlled trials that investigated tenodesis and tenotomy with no language restriction and evaluation of adult patients who presented with a long head of the biceps tendon lesion, associated with other lesions or not, without previous shoulder surgeries and who had no response to nonoperative treatment. The initial search yielded 239 studies, 40 of which were duplicates. We assessed the titles and abstracts of 199 articles and excluded all studies that were not randomized controlled trials (literature reviews) or that compared different techniques. We assessed the full text of 14 articles and excluded the ones that were protocols and cohort studies. We evaluated the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. We included eight studies in this systematic review and meta-analysis, with a total of 615 participants, 306 of whom were treated with tenotomy and 309 with tenodesis. The median duration of follow-up was 2 years. Overall, the included studies had a low risk of bias. The complications evaluated were adhesive capsulitis, biceps brachii tear, cramps, and a subsequent second surgical procedure. We used a random model in this meta-analysis so that we could generalize the results beyond the included studies. In this study, we only reported differences between the groups if they were both statistically valid and larger than the minimum clinically important difference (MCID).

RESULTS

Comparing tenotomy and tenodesis, we observed no difference between the groups regarding pain in the long term (mean difference 0.25 [95% confidence interval -0.29 to 0.80]; p = 0.36). There was no difference in Constant score in the long-term (mean difference -1.45 [95% CI -2.96 to 0.06]; p = 0.06). There were no differences when evaluating for major complications (odds ratio 1.37 [95% CI 0.29 to 6.56]; p = 0.70). There were not enough papers evaluating adhesive capsulitis, cramping, and risk of revision surgery. Popeye sign was more frequent in the tenotomy group than in the tenodesis group (OR 4.70 [95% CI 2.71 to 8.17]; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review demonstrated that tenotomy and tenodesis offer satisfactory treatment for long head of the biceps tendon lesions. In terms of pain improvement and Constant score, there was no difference between the techniques, but patients undergoing tenotomy have worse cosmetic results. Therefore, surgeons should choose the technique based on their skills and the patient's expectations of surgery, such as cosmesis and time to recovery. More studies are needed to evaluate complications such as adhesive capsulitis and cramping, as well as to compare duration of surgery and recovery time for each technique.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, therapeutic study.

Failure rates and clinical outcomes after treatment for long-head biceps brachii tendon pathology: a comparison of three treatment types

Hypothesis/Background

Treatment options for the biceps brachii tendon include tenotomy, arthroscopic tenodesis, and open tenodesis. Few studies to date have compared all treatment options in the context of a rotator cuff repair.

Methods

A retrospective review of 100 patients who underwent arthroscopic supraspinatus repair between 2013 and 2018 with a minimum of one-year follow-up was performed. Patients were separated into the following 4 groups: (1) 57 had isolated supraspinatus repair with no biceps tendon surgery (SSP); (2) 16 had supraspinatus repair and biceps tenotomy; (3) 18 had supraspinatus repair and arthroscopic biceps tenodesis; (4) 9 had supraspinatus repair and an open biceps tenodesis (SSP + OT). The primary outcome was operative time. The secondary outcomes were cost analysis, complications, patient-reported outcome measures, range of motion, and strength testing.

Results

The operative time for the SSP + OT group was significantly longer than that of the SSP group (P < .05) but was not significantly longer than that of the other groups. The cost for the SSP group was significantly less than the cost for the SSP + OT and supraspinatus repair and arthroscopic biceps tenodesis groups (P < .05 for both), whereas the cost for the supraspinatus repair and biceps tenotomy group was significantly less than the cost for the SSP + OT group (P < .05). There were no significant differences between groups for complications, all patient-reported outcome measues, all range of motion, and all strength parameters.

Discussion/Conclusion

Operative time is the longest in open biceps tenodesis and is significantly longer than that of isolated supraspinatus repair. No significant differences in operative times or costs were identified in patients undergoing arthroscopic vs. open biceps tenodesis. All patients, irrespective of the type of biceps tendon procedure, had excellent clinical and functional outcomes at least one year after surgery. There was no difference in clinical or functional outcomes, or complications, among the 4 groups.

Biceps Tenodesis Versus Tenotomy in the Treatment of Lesions of the Long Head of the Biceps Tendon in Patients Undergoing Arthroscopic Shoulder Surgery: A Prospective Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The biceps tendon is a known source of shoulder pain. Few high-level studies have attempted to determine whether biceps tenotomy or tenodesis is the optimal approach in the treatment of biceps pathology. Most available literature is of lesser scientific quality and shows varying results in the comparison of tenotomy and tenodesis.

PURPOSE

To compare patient-reported and objective clinical results between tenotomy and tenodesis for the treatment of lesions of the long head of the biceps brachii.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥18 years undergoing arthroscopic surgery with intraoperative confirmation of a lesion of the long head of the biceps tendon were randomized. The primary outcome measure was the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, while secondary outcomes included the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) score, elbow and shoulder strength, operative time, complications, and the incidence of revision surgery with each procedure. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed at postoperative 1 year to evaluate the integrity of the procedure in the tenodesis group.

RESULTS

A total of 114 participants with a mean age of 57.7 years (range, 34 years to 86 years) were randomized to undergo either biceps tenodesis or tenotomy. ASES and WORC scores improved significantly from pre- to postoperative time points, with a mean difference of 32.3% (P < .001) and 37.3% (P < .001), respectively, with no difference between groups in either outcome from presurgery to postoperative 24 months. The relative risk of cosmetic deformity in the tenotomy group relative to the tenodesis group at 24 months was 3.5 (95% CI, 1.26-9.70; P = .016), with 4 (10%) occurrences in the tenodesis group and 15 (33%) in the tenotomy group. Pain improved from 3 to 24 months postoperatively (P < .001) with no difference between groups. Cramping was not different between groups, nor was any improvement in cramping seen over time. There were no differences between groups in elbow flexion strength or supination strength. Follow-up magnetic resonance imaging at postoperative 12 months showed that the tenodesis was intact for all patients.

CONCLUSION

Tenotomy and tenodesis as treatment for lesions of the long head of biceps tendon both result in good subjective outcomes but there is a higher rate of Popeye deformity in the tenotomy group.

REGISTRATION

NCT01747902 ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Should long head of biceps tenodesis or tenotomy be routinely performed in arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs?

Purpose

The long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) lesions are frequently associated with partial or complete rotator cuff tears (RCTs), but controversy revolves around their optimal surgical management.

Methods

Hence this article aims to review the current literature available on the role of biceps surgery in rotator cuff surgery and whether it should be routinely performed in rotator cuff repairs.

Results

Furthermore, we also discuss the advantages and drawbacks of tenotomy or tenodesis of LHBT in rotator cuff surgery.

Conclusion

We conclude this article with recommendations for surgeons performing rotator cuff repairs and future research in this area.

Effect of biceps tenodesis on speed of recovery after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair

Background

Concomitant biceps tendon pathology is often present in patients undergoing rotator cuff repair (RCR). Management of biceps pathology has been reported to influence outcomes of RCR; however, the impact on the pace of recovery remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to analyze the effects of simultaneous RCR with biceps tenodesis (RCR-BT) on time to achieve maximum improvement and recovery speed for pain and function.

Methods

A retrospective review of 535 patients who underwent primary RCR for full-thickness tears. Patients treated with simultaneous RCR-BT were compared with RCR-only. Outcome measures and motion were recorded at preoperative routine postoperative intervals. Plateau in maximal improvement and recovery speed were analyzed for both pain and functional recovery.

Results

Baseline American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) function was significantly lower for the RCR-BT cohort (20.5) compared with RCR-only (23.9; P = .008). For visual analog scale (VAS) pain and measured motion, the plateau in maximal improvement occurred at 6 months for RCR-BT compared with 12 months for the RCR-only group. The remainder of the patient-reported outcome measures took 12 months to achieve a plateau in maximal improvement. At 3 months, 79% of improvement in pain and 42%-49% of functional improvement was achieved in the RCR-BT cohort. Similarly, at 3 months, the RCR-only cohort achieved 73% of pain improvement and 36%-57% of functional improvement at 3 months.

Conclusion

Patients requiring RCR with simultaneous biceps tenodesis have lower baseline ASES function and earlier postoperative plateaus in pain relief and motion improvement following surgery. Nonetheless, the speed of recovery was not influenced by the biceps tenodesis.

Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction

Background

Biceps tenotomy and tenodesis are surgical treatments for pathology of the proximal tendon of the long head of the biceps. There is debate over which procedure provides better patient outcomes.

Purpose

Compare patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction between biceps tenotomy and tenodesis.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study including all patients undergoing arthroscopic biceps tenodesis or tenotomy as part of more extensive shoulder surgery with a single surgeon. Concomitant procedures included rotator cuff repair, subacromial decompression, acromioclavicular joint resection, and debridement. Patients 36–81 years old were contacted by phone at > 2-year post-operatively to complete a biceps-specific outcome questionnaire. Subject decision not to participate was the sole exclusion criterion. Satisfaction scores and frequencies of potential biceps-related downsides (biceps cramping/spasms, biceps pain, shoulder pain, weakness, cosmetic deformity) were analyzed for the effects of procedure, sex, and age.

Results

Satisfaction score distributions were similar between patients with tenodesis and patients with tenotomy (χ² = 8.34, P = 0.08), although slightly more patients with tenodesis than patients with tenotomy reported being satisfied or very satisfied (96% versus 91%). Perceived downsides occurred more frequently among patients with tenotomy than in patients with tenodesis: 59% of patients with tenotomy reported ≥ 1 downside, versus 37% of patients with tenodesis (P < 0.01). In patients reporting ≥ 1 downside, distributions of total downsides differed between procedures (χ² = 10.04, P = 0.04): patients with tenotomy were more likely to report multiple concurrent downsides than were patients with tenodesis (31% versus 16%). Each individual downside tended to be reported as present by a greater proportion of patients with tenotomy than patients with tenodesis. Sex had no effect on satisfaction or downsides, but there was a trend for older patients to report higher satisfaction and fewer downsides.

Conclusions

Biceps tenotomy and tenodesis are both viable treatments for proximal biceps tendon pathology, yielding high patient satisfaction. There were trends toward greater satisfaction and fewer problems in patients with tenodesis. Still, younger patients with tenodesis did report perceived downsides. Alternatively, older patients tended to be more satisfied with both procedures overall. Regardless of procedure, most patients receiving either tenotomy or tenodesis would undergo their respective surgery again.

Level of Evidence

Level III evidence, retrospective comparative cohort study

Small-incision open distal subpectoral vs. arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis for biceps long head tendon lesions with repair of rotator cuff tears

The curative effect of small-incision open distal subpectoral vs. arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis for lesions in the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) combined with rotator cuff repairs (RCR) has remained controversial. The aim of the present study was to compare the two surgical methods. A total of 71 patients who received surgical treatment for LHBT lesions accompanied by RC tears were analyzed. Following arthroscopic RCR and tendectomy of the affected LHBT, 35 patients underwent small-incision open distal subpectoral tenodesis through a small incision (the subpectoral group), while the remaining 36 patients received arthroscopic proximal tenodesis (the arthroscopic group). The surgery time and intra-operative blood loss were compared between the two groups. In addition, the clinical outcomes were evaluated using scoring systems for the functional assessment of the shoulder joint. The subpectoral group had a shorter surgery time and less intra-operative blood loss than the arthroscopic group (P<0.05). The functional scores of the two groups significantly improved as time passed (P<0.05). The subpectoral group was significantly superior to the arthroscopic group with regard to the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score at 2 weeks post-operatively and visual analog scale score at 2 weeks and 3 months post-operatively (P<0.05). Small-incision open distal subpectoral and arthroscopic proximal tenodesis were demonstrated to effectively improve the function of the shoulder joint and relieve pain caused by LHBT lesions accompanied by RCR. However, small-incision open distal subpectoral tenodesis had the additional advantage of shorter surgery time, less intra-operative bleeding and encouraging early results compared to arthroscopic proximal tenodesis. The study was registered as a clinical trial in the Chinese Trial Registry (no. ChiCTR1800015643).

Biceps tenotomy has earlier pain relief compared to biceps tenodesis: a randomized prospective study

PURPOSE

 Surgical management for long head of the biceps (LHB) tendinopathy with either biceps tenotomy or tenodesis is a reliable, but debated treatment option. The aim of this prospective, randomized, single-blinded study is to evaluate differences in pain relief and subjective outcomes between biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis for LHB tendinopathy.

METHODS

 Subjects were randomized and blinded to biceps tenotomy versus arthroscopic tenodesis intra-operatively. Outcomes evaluated included subjective patient outcome scores, pain, and cosmetic deformity. Subjective outcomes scores and pain were analyzed using a two-way ANOVA, controlling for concomitant rotator cuff repair. Binary outcomes were compared using Chi-square tests.

RESULTS

 Thirty-four subjects (31 male, 3 female) with a median age of 56 (range 30-77) were enrolled. Twenty subjects were randomized to tenotomy and 14 to tenodesis. Fifty-six percent had concomitant rotator cuff repairs. The mean VAS pain score at 3 months was lower with tenotomy versus tenodesis. 2-year follow-up demonstrated no statistically significant differences for VAS, ASES, or SANE. 15/20 (75%) subjects with biceps tenotomy reported no pain medication use at the 2-week postoperative visit versus 5/14 (33%) for biceps tenodesis. Popeye deformity was found in 5/20 (25%) of tenotomy subjects versus 1/14 (7%) in tenodesis subjects.

CONCLUSION

Outcomes appear similar between biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis; however, the tenotomy group demonstrated greater incidence of cosmetic deformity but an earlier improvement in postoperative pain.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Treatment Studies, Level II.

Magnetic resonance arthrography is insufficiently accurate to diagnose biceps lesions prior to rotator cuff repair

PURPOSE

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy between magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) and arthroscopic examination for the assessment of pathologies of the long head of the biceps (LHB) prior to rotator cuff (RC) repair. The hypothesis was that MRA is suitable to identify biceps instabilities, due to improved visibility of the biceps pulley.

METHODS

Sixty-six patients aged 58.5 ± 17.6 (range, 46-71) scheduled to have RC repair between 2016 and 2017 were prospectively enrolled. MRA images of the LHB were interpreted by one radiologist and two surgeons, then compared to arthroscopic findings. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated by comparing MRA axial readings to arthroscopic assessment in the neutral position (static instability), MRA sagittal readings to arthroscopic assessment in external rotation (dynamic s instability), MRA coronal and axial readings to arthroscopic assessment in the neutral position (tendinopathy).

RESULTS

Among the three observers, the radiologist obtained the highest sensitivity and specificity for MRA, which were respectively: (1) for static instability, 62% (C.I. 35-85) and 77% (C.I. 63-88); (2) for dynamic instability, 50% (C.I. 29-71) and 62% (C.I. 46-77), and (3) for tendinopathy, 49% (C.I. 36-62) and 100% (C.I. 3-100).

CONCLUSIONS

MRA is not suitable for the diagnosis of LHB lesions prior to arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic study, Level I.

The new LassoLoop360° technique for biomechanically superior tissue grip

PURPOSE

Suprapectoral tenodesis is a frequently used technique for treating pathologies of the long head of the biceps brachii (LHBB) tendon. However, so far, no Gold Standard treatment exist. Hence, the arthroscopic LassoLoop360 (LL360) technique is introduced aiming to provide secure fixation and improved biomechanical properties. It was hypothesized, that the LL360 technique would show superior biomechanical response to cyclic loading and ultimate load-to-failure testing compared to the commonly used simple Lasso Loop (SLL).

METHODS

Twenty-two porcine superficial flexor digitorum tendons were prepared using a No. 2 suture according to either the SLL or the LL360 technique. Displacement after cyclic loading (1.000 cycles) between 5 and 30 N, ultimate load-to-failure (ULTF), mode of failure as well as the construct stiffness were tested.

RESULTS

Significantly less displacement was found in the LL360 group (SLL 2.25 ± 0.51 mm; LL360 1.67 ± 0.37 mm; p = 0.01). Ultimate Load to Failure was significantly higher in the LL360 (168.6 ± 29.6 N) as compared to the SLL (124.1 ± 25.8 N, p = 0.02). The LL360 also revealed a significant higher stiffness compared to the SLL (SLL 13.1 ± 0.9 N/mm vs. LL360 19.1 ± 1.0 N/mm, p < 0.001). The most common mode of failure was the suture cutting through the tendon, with a significantly less suture cutting through for the LL360 compared with the SLL (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The LassoLoop360-technique offers superior biomechanical characteristics regarding the tendon-suture-interface compared to the SLL. In the initial healing phase, the suture-tendon-interface is the most vulnerable part of the tendon-suture-anchor construct, the aim of this new technique is to reduce this weakest part of the chain (Ponce et al., Am J Sports Med 39:188-194, 2011). This technique may therefore be beneficial for arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis at the entrance of the bicipital groove.

Increased reoperation rates among patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy with concomitant biceps tenodesis

Background

The purpose of this study was to determine whether patients undergoing any shoulder arthroscopic procedure with concomitant biceps tenodesis have higher reoperation and complication rates vs. patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy without concomitant biceps tenodesis.

Methods

A large database was queried for patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy, identified by Current Procedural Terminology code. Only records indicating the laterality of the procedure were included. Patients were divided into 3 cohorts: arthroscopic shoulder surgery without concomitant biceps tenodesis (group 1), surgery with arthroscopic biceps tenodesis (group 2), and surgery with open biceps tenodesis (group 3). Reoperations on the same shoulder, as well as medical or surgical complications (by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code) during the 30-day postoperative period, were determined. Multivariate logistic regression was used to control for differences in age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index between groups.

Results

We identified 62,461 patients (54.3% male patients) in the database who underwent shoulder arthroscopy, with 51,773 patients in group 1, 7134 patients in group 2, and 3554 patients in group 3. Overall, 3134 patients (5.0%) underwent a shoulder arthroscopy reoperation. With adjustment for age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, the biceps intervention groups demonstrated a significantly higher overall reoperation rate (odds ratio, 1.3 [95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.5]; P < .001). Patients undergoing biceps tenodesis had a lower adjusted overall 30-day complication rate vs. those not undergoing tenodesis (odds ratio, 0.82 [95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.86]; P < .001).

Conclusion

Reoperation rates were significantly higher in patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy with biceps tenodesis than in patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy without biceps tenodesis. Both the arthroscopic and open tenodesis groups had significantly lower complication rates.

A meta-analysis comparing tenotomy or tenodesis for lesions of the long head of the biceps tendon with concomitant reparable rotator cuff tears

Background

The best treatment for lesions of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) with concomitant reparable rotator cuff tears is still controversial. The purpose of the meta-analysis was to compare clinical outcomes of biceps tenotomy and tenodesis for LHBT lesions.

Methods

A literature retrieval was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library from 1979 to March 2018. Comparative studies (level of evidence I or II) comparing tenotomy and tenodesis for LHBT lesions with concomitant reparable rotator cuff tears were included. Risk of bias for all included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool. Clinical outcomes compared were Popeye sign, Constant score, VAS pain score, cramping pain, elbow flexion and forearm supination strength, and re-tear of the rotator cuff.

Results

Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five prospective cohort studies (PCS) with 288 biceps tenotomy patients and 303 biceps tenodesis patients were included in this review. Tenotomy resulted in significantly greater rates of Popeye sign (RR, 2.70 [95% CI, 1.80 to 4.04]; P < 0.01) and a less favorable Constant score (MD, − 1.09 [95% CI, − 1.90 to − 0.28]; P < 0.01) compared to tenodesis. No significant heterogeneity was found between the two groups across all parameters except forearm supination strength.

Conclusions

The current evidence indicates that biceps tenodesis for LHBT lesions with concomitant reparable rotator cuff tears results in decreased rate of Popeye sign and improved Constant score compared to biceps tenotomy.

Trial registration

PROSPERO, CRD42018105504. Registered on 13 August 2018.

Lesions of the Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Concomitant with Rotator Cuff Tears: Tenotomy or Subpectoral Mini-open Tenodesis? A Comparative Short to Mid-term Follow-up Study

Objective

To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of patients who underwent rotator cuff repair (RCR) concomitant with long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) tenotomy or subpectoral mini‐open tenodesis.

Methods

Prospectively collected data was reviewed on 154 patients, who underwent a LHBT procedure (tenotomy or tenodesis) concomitant with RCR between January 2010 and January 2017. The exclusion criteria were irreparable massive rotator cuff tear, rotator cuff partial tear, subscapular tendon tear, glenohumeral arthritis, and prior shoulder surgery. The two patient groups are as follows: RCR + Tenotomy (Group A) and RCR + Subpectoral mini‐open tenodesis (Group B). The visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, Constant Score scale, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) scores preoperatively and 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year postoperatively and the latest out‐patient clinic were compared between the two groups.

Results

Ninety‐two patients in Group A and 62 patients in Group B completed the follow‐up, with a median follow‐up time of 27 and 42 months respectively. At the final follow‐up, the VAS, Constant, ASES, and DASH scores in Group A were 0.1 ± 0.2, 87.0 ± 12.8, 96.4 ± 4.3 and 6.6 ± 4.8 respectively, and the VAS, Constant, ASES, and DASH scores in Group B were 0.1 ± 0.3, 92.5 ± 3.9, 96.3 ± 3.6 and 2.9 ± 1.3 respectively. Clinical evaluation scales showed satisfactory results in both groups, and there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups at the same follow‐up time. Popeye sign was detected in one case of Group A (1.1%) and in one case of Group B (1.6%, P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Both tenotomy and subpectoral mini‐open tenodesis are effective for concomitant lesions of the LHBT in patients with reparable rotator cuff tears, and subpectoral mini‐open tenodesis of the LHBT does not provide any significant clinical or functional improvement than isolated tenotomy.

Editorial Commentary: Biceps Tendon Tenderness… Is It Enough to Guide Surgical Management?

Pathology of the long head of the biceps tendon is often encountered concurrently with rotator cuff tears. Although both preoperative and intraoperative evaluations may play a role in the decision-making process of when and how to treat the biceps, it can still be a conundrum. The more straightforward tests and reliable evaluation methods we have in our repertoire, the more likely the appropriate treatment choice to address the pathology will be made. The subpectoral biceps test is a helpful examination maneuver as part of the preoperative biceps evaluation.

Patient-determined outcomes after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with and without biceps tenodesis utilizing the PITT technique

HYPOTHESIS AND BACKGROUND

The percutaneous intra-articular transtendon technique (PITT) is a simple, rapid, and low-cost method of performing a biceps tenodesis. Few studies exist that examine the patient-determined outcomes of this technique in general or in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) with and without biceps tenodesis. We hypothesized that patients undergoing an isolated arthroscopic RCR would have equivalent outcomes to those undergoing RCRs with PITT biceps tenodesis.

METHODS

We compared preoperative, patient-determined outcomes scores on patients undergoing primary arthroscopic RCR with and without a PITT biceps tenodesis with postoperative scores at a minimum of 2 years. These scores included the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff score (WORC), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and Shoulder Activity Level (SAL). Indication for a concomitant biceps tenodesis was a partial long head biceps tendon tear or biceps instability/subluxation.

RESULTS

A total of 153 patients underwent an isolated RCR and 131 patients underwent RCR with biceps tenodesis (RCRBT). Both groups had improvements in WORC, ASES, SANE, and SST (P < .0001) and deteriorations in the SAL (P ≤ .005). There was no difference in the change in outcome scores between the groups (RCRBT vs. RCR, respectively) for WORC (46 vs. 47; P = .85), ASES (46 vs. 47; P = .82), SANE (53 vs. 51; P = .35), SST (5.8 vs. 5.8; P = .93), and SAL (-0.9 vs. -1.4; P = .46). There was no difference between the groups in complications that required revision surgery (1.5% vs. 1.3%; P = .91).

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic PITT RCRBT is safe and effective with equivalent patient-determined outcomes compared with patients undergoing RCR without biceps tenodesis.

Reconstruction of the Superior Glenoid Labrum With Biceps Tendon Autograft: A Cadaveric Biomechanical Study

PURPOSE

To describe 2 superior labral reconstruction techniques using long head of the biceps (LHB) autograft and to investigate the ability of the 2 reconstruction techniques to restore superior restraint to the glenohumeral joint compared with superior labrum-deficient models.

METHODS

In this biomechanical study, 10 cadaveric shoulders were cycled on a servohydraulic machine while the force required to cause superior subluxation was recorded. Each specimen was cycled under 4 conditions: intact labrum, SLAP tear, posterior (9- to 12-o'clock position) labral reconstruction using LHB autograft (superior labral reconstruction 1 [SLR1]), and 180° (9- to 3-o'clock position) labral reconstruction using LHB autograft (superior labral reconstruction 2 [SLR2]).

RESULTS

The mean peak force required to cause superior subluxation in the intact labrum was 32.75 N versus 19.75 N in the SLAP tear (P = .0120). SLR1 required a mean peak force of 31.23 N versus 44.09 N for SLR2 (P = .0175). SLR1 required 94.96% of the force needed in the intact labrum to cause subluxation, whereas SLR2 required 140.6%. SLR1 and SLR2 required 34.21% higher (P = .0074) and 79.84% higher (P = .0033) forces, respectively, to generate subluxation compared with the SLAP tear state.

CONCLUSIONS

Both proposed superior labral reconstruction techniques increased the force needed for humeral head superior migration in the setting of a labral tear. SLR1 (posterior labral reconstruction) closely matched the constraint of an intact labrum, whereas SLR2 (180° labral reconstruction) provided greater superior constraint than an intact labrum.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The natural history of irreparable rotator cuff tears results in superior glenohumeral escape and eventual arthrosis. The superior glenoid labrum is an important contributor to superior glenohumeral constraint and is often degenerated in this setting. Clinical application of the 2 described superior labral reconstruction techniques may improve glenohumeral superior stability in patients with rotator cuff disease and superior labral deficiency.

Tenodesis renders better results than tenotomy in repairs of isolated supraspinatus tears with pathologic biceps

BACKGROUND

Many authors recommend systematic biceps tenotomy or tenodesis when repairing rotator cuff tears, regardless of whether the biceps is normal or pathologic. The purpose of this study was to determine whether 10-year outcomes of repairs of isolated supraspinatus tears are influenced by adjuvant biceps tenodesis or tenotomy.

METHODS

Patients who underwent repair of isolated supraspinatus tears were recalled for evaluation at a minimum follow-up of 10 years. A total of 249 patients (51% men) aged 56.7 ± 6.3 years were evaluated clinically (Constant score), of whom 182 were also evaluated using magnetic resonance imaging (Sugaya classification). The biceps was intraoperatively found to be pathologic in 52% of shoulders, of which 39% had a tenotomy and 54% had a tenodesis; it was found to be normal in 48% of shoulders, of which 88% were left intact.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in Constant scores for patients who had normal biceps without adjuvant procedures (77.1 ± 11.7) compared with patients who had pathologic biceps with either tenodesis (79.8 ± 11.5, P = .104) or tenotomy (75.3 ± 10.7, P = .420). However, for patients who had pathologic biceps, Constant scores were significantly better for those with tenodesis compared with those with tenotomy (P = .025). Multivariable regression revealed Constant scores to be significantly lower for women, as well as patients with fatty infiltration of stages 1 and 2, but significantly higher for patients who underwent tenodesis.

CONCLUSION

Adjuvant biceps procedures are not required when repairing isolated supraspinatus tears, unless biceps pathology is observed intraoperatively, for which tenodesis grants better function and strength than tenotomy.

A Systematic Summary of Systematic Reviews on the Topic of the Rotator Cuff

BACKGROUND

The number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published on the rotator cuff (RC) has increased markedly.

PURPOSE

To quantify the number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published on the RC and to provide a qualitative summary of the literature.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A systematic search for all systematic reviews and meta-analyses pertaining to the RC published between January 2007 and September 2017 was performed with PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Narrative reviews and non-English language articles were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 1078 articles were found, of which 196 met the inclusion criteria. Included articles were summarized and divided into 15 topics: anatomy and function, histology and genetics, diagnosis, epidemiology, athletes, nonoperative versus operative treatment, surgical repair methods, concomitant conditions and surgical procedures, RC tears after total shoulder arthroplasty, biological augmentation, postoperative rehabilitation, outcomes and complications, patient-reported outcome measures, cost-effectiveness of RC repair, and quality of randomized controlled trials.

CONCLUSION

A qualitative summary of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses published on the RC can provide surgeons with a single source of the most current literature.

Management of Biceps Tendon Pathology: From the Glenoid to the Radial Tuberosity

Management of proximal and distal biceps tendon pathology is evolving. The long head of the biceps tendon, if inflamed, may be a pain-producing structure. In appropriately indicated patients, a symptomatic long head of the biceps tendon can be surgically managed via tenotomy, tenodesis, and/or superior labrum anterior to posterior repair. In some patients, primary superior labrum anterior to posterior pathology can be managed via biceps tenodesis. Determining which procedure is most appropriate and which technique and implant are preferred for a given patient with biceps tendon pathology is controversial. Less debate exists with regard to the timing of distal biceps tendon repair; however, considerable controversy exists with regard to selection of an appropriate surgical technique and implant. In addition, the treatment of patients with a chronic and/or retracted distal biceps tendon tear and patients in whom distal biceps tendon repair fails is extremely challenging. Orthopaedic surgeons should understand the anatomy of, nonsurgical and surgical treatment options for, and outcomes of patients with proximal or distal biceps tendon pathology.

Inter- and intrarater reliability of goniometry and hand held dynamometry for patients with subacromial impingement syndrome

The purpose of this study was to examine the intra- and interrater reliability of measuring shoulder range of motion (ROM) and strength among patients diagnosed with subacromial impingement syndrome (SAIS). Twenty-five patients (14 female patients; mean age, 60.4± 7.84 years) diagnosed with SAIS were assessed to determine the intrarater reliability for glenohumeral ROM. Twenty-five patients (16 female patients; mean age, 60.4± 7.80 years) and 76 asymptomatic volunteers (52 female volunteers; mean age, 29.4± 14.1 years) were assessed for interrater reliability. Dependent variables were active shoulder ROM and isometric strength. Intrarater reliability was fair-to-excellent for the SAIS patients (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.52–0.97; standard error of measurement [SEM], 4.4°–9.9° N; coefficient of variation [CV], 7.1%–44.9%). Based on the ICC, 11 of 12 parameters (92%) displayed an excellent reliability (ICC> 0.75). The interrater reliability showed fair-to-excellent results (SAIS patients: ICC, 0.13–0.98; SEM, 2.3°–8.8°; CV, 3.6%–37.0%; controls: ICC, 0.11–0.96; SEM, 3.0°–35.4°; CV, 5.6%–26.4%). In accordance with the intrarater reliability, glenohumeral adduction ROM was the only parameter with an ICC below 0.75 for both samples. Painful shoulder ROM in the SAIS patients showed no influence on the quality of reliability for measurement. Therefore, these protocols should be considered reliable assessment techniques in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of painful shoulder conditions such as SAIS.

Editorial Commentary: The Long Head of the Biceps Brachii Tendon-The Shoulder Surgeon's Conundrum

The long head of the biceps tendon can be a significant pain generator in the setting of rotator cuff tearing. Surgeons who encounter long head of biceps tendon pathology at the time of rotator cuff repair can be confident in a high likelihood of statistically significant clinical improvement with concomitant long head of biceps surgery. Patients can be reliably counseled preoperatively that if they have both clinically apparent long head of biceps tendon pathology and rotator cuff tearing, and if they undergo long head of biceps tendon surgery with rotator cuff repair, they can expect comparable or better outcomes than isolated rotator cuff repair.

Comparison of Outcomes 1 Year After Rotator Cuff Repair With and Without Concomitant Biceps Surgery

PURPOSE

To compare the outcomes of patients who undergo a long head of the biceps (LHB) procedure (tenotomy or tenodesis) concomitant with rotator cuff repair (RCR) to those of patients who undergo isolated RCR.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data were retrospectively reviewed on 80 patients, >18 years old, who underwent repair of a full-thickness rotator cuff tear and with 1-year patient-reported outcome scores collected June 2012 to March 2015. The exclusion criteria were concomitant procedures other than LHB tenotomy, tenodesis, or subacromial decompression; prior shoulder surgery; or other shoulder pathology. The 3 patient groups are as follows: RCR + tenotomy, RCR + tenodesis, and isolated RCR. The primary outcome measures were American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) index, and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. A t-test measured the mean improvement in LHB patients compared with isolated RCR patients and compared the LHB tenotomy and tenodesis groups. Stepwise linear progression used LHB tenotomy or tenodesis as the primary predictor.

RESULTS

The biceps procedure group had more female patients (22 vs 7, P = .01); otherwise there were no significant baseline differences. The LHB procedure group had significantly worse baseline ASES scores (mean, 48.9 vs 58.7; P = .032). All RCR patients showed significant improvement in all 3 outcome measures. Patients who had either LHB tenotomy or tenodesis (n = 45) demonstrated significantly greater mean improvement in ASES (mean, 42.7 vs 23.8; P = .002), VAS (mean, 49.2 vs 35.7; P = .020), and WORC scores (mean, 928 vs 743; P = .029) at 1-year follow-up compared with patients who had isolated RCR. ASES scores at 1 year were significantly better in the biceps group (91.6 vs 82.5; P = .023). Linear regression found a biceps procedure to be predictive of a significantly greater improvement in ASES score (P = .01). Analysis of variance revealed that both the LHB tenotomy (P = .04) and tenodesis (P = .01) groups demonstrated more favorable improvement in ASES when compared with RCR alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent a concomitant biceps procedure when indicated at the time of RCR demonstrated inferior baseline patient-reported outcome measures and greater improvement after 1 year, as well as more favorable ASES scores at 1 year compared with isolated RCR patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

A meta-analysis comparing tenotomy and tenodesis for treating rotator cuff tears combined with long head of the biceps tendon lesions

Purpose

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to assess whether there were differences in the outcomes between tenotomy and tenodesis in treating LHBT lesions combined with rotator cuff repairs.

Methods

Using Medline, Embase, and Cochrane, we searched for articles comparing tenotomy and tenodesis combined with rotator cuff repair which were published before April 2016 with the terms “biceps”, “tenotomy”, “tenodesis”, and “rotator cuff”. The controlled clinical studies that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were assessed for quality of methodology by utilizing the Coleman score.

Results

On the basis of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, ten articles (903 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. The Coleman score ranged between 40 and 89 in the included studies. The results showed that the incidence of the popeye sign (OR, 2.777, P = 0.000) were higher in tenotomy group compared with tenodesis group when concomitant rotator cuff repair. Statistically significant difference in favor of tenodesis was observed for Constant score (SMD, -0.230, P = 0.025). As for the arm cramping pain, patient satisfaction, VAS score, ASES score and UCLA increased score, the strength and the range of motion, there were no significant differences between tenodesis and tenotomy of the LHBT, corresponding to the currently available results in the literature.

Conclusions

Based on this meta-analysis, both tenotomy and tenodesis are effective in pain relief and function improvement in patients with repairable rotator cuff tears. No significant differences in post-operative functional outcome between tenotomy and tenodesis for the treatment of LHBT lesions were observed except for a lower Constant score and higher risk of Popeye deformity in tenotomy.

The Effect of Concomitant Biceps Tenodesis on Reoperation Rates After Rotator Cuff Repair: A Review of a Large Private-Payer Database From 2007 to 2014

PURPOSE

To determine if reoperation rates are higher for patients who underwent isolated rotator cuff repair (RCR) than those who underwent RCR with concomitant biceps tenodesis using a large private-payer database.

METHODS

A national insurance database was queried for patients who underwent arthroscopic RCR between the years 2007 and 2014 (PearlDiver, Warsaw, IN). The Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) 29,827 (arthroscopy, shoulder, surgical; with RCR) identified RCR patients who were subdivided into 3 groups-group 1: RCR without biceps tenodesis; group 2: RCR with concomitant arthroscopic biceps tenodesis (CPT 29827 and 29,828); group 3: RCR with concomitant open biceps tenodesis (CPT 29827 and 23,430). Reoperation rates (revision RCR, subsequent biceps surgeries) and complications at 30 days, 90 days, 6 months, and 1 year were analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression was used to compare reoperations and complications between groups. Rotator cuff tear size, whether the biceps was ruptured and whether a biceps tenotomy was performed, was not available.

RESULTS

Group 1: 27,178 patients. Group 2: 4,810 patients. Group 3: 1,493 patients. More patients underwent concomitant arthroscopic than concomitant open tenodesis (P < .001). A total of 2,509 patients underwent a reoperation for RCR or biceps tenodesis within 1 year after RCR. When adjusted for age, sex, and comorbidities, no significant differences in reoperation rates at 30 days or 90 days among the 3 groups, but significantly more patients who had a tenodesis, required a reoperation compared with those who did not have a tenodesis at 6 months and 1 year (both P < .001). Urinary tract infections were more common in patients who did not have a tenodesis, whereas dislocation, nerve injury, and surgical site infection were more common in tenodesis patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher reoperation rates at 1 year were seen in patients who had concomitant biceps tenodesis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, case-control database review study.

Patient Satisfaction After Biceps Tenotomy

Background:

Biceps tenotomy and tenodesis are frequently performed for proximal biceps lesions; however, there continues to be debate as to which method is superior. This study examined patient-reported outcomes after biceps tenotomy.

Hypothesis:

Biceps tenotomy in the setting of concomitant shoulder pathology is a reasonable option with high satisfaction rates and a low incidence of pain and cramping in middle-aged to older individuals.

Study Design:

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

A total of 104 patients (mean age, 63.5 years; range, 40-81 years) were evaluated at the time of surgery and at a mean follow-up of 38.4 months (range, 22-57 months). Biceps tenotomy was performed as a component of more extensive shoulder surgery in all patients. Patient satisfaction, frequency of cramping and spasms, biceps pain, weakness, and cosmetic deformity were evaluated at over 1-year follow-up.

Results:

Ninety-one percent of patients were satisfied or very satisfied with their surgical outcome, and 95% would have their surgery again. Three patients who reported being unsatisfied or very unsatisfied had either advanced glenohumeral arthritis or an irreparable rotator cuff tear. Cosmetic deformity occurred in 13% of patients. Twenty percent reported spasms and cramping in their biceps, and 19% reported some biceps pain; however, frequency of spasms and cramping was typically once weekly, and biceps pain was reported as severe or very severe in only 2 patients. Subjective biceps weakness was reported in 17% of patients. Age had no effect on outcome measures, and female sex was associated with less limitation and greater satisfaction after tenotomy compared with men.

Conclusion:

Our results indicate that patient-reported downsides to biceps tenotomy were usually mild and/or infrequent and did not affect patient satisfaction. We conclude that biceps tenotomy is a viable option that can lead to a high rate of patient satisfaction and outcomes in middle-aged to older individuals undergoing shoulder surgery with biceps pathology.

No-holes transpectoral tenodesis technique vs tenotomy of the long head of the biceps brachii

BACKGROUND

There is no univocal consensus regarding Long Head of the Biceps (LHB) best treatment between tenotomy and tenodesis. There is no consensus regarding the best location to perform the tenodesis. The LHB tenodesis performed by the proximal tendon excision as first step can miss the proper tension to the muscle belly. Fixations proximal to the pectoralis major can lead to groove pain. This study aims to test the efficacy of a new LHB tenodesis technique by comparing its results with the tenotomy.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent surgery between May 2014 and May 2015. The mean follow up was 14.7 months. Sixteen patients underwent mini-open tenodesis to the Pectoralis Major tendon by the use of a resorbable suture (TD group); sixteen underwent tenotomy (TT group). The mean age of the TD group was 54 years; the mean age of the TT group was 56 years. We evaluated pain, subjective perception of the patient of possible aesthetic and strength differences between the two biceps, "Popeye sign", and tests to stimulate the LHB. We administered three evaluation questionnaires: the ASES score, the SPADI score, and the SST.

RESULTS

32 consecutive patients were evaluated. The clinical scores did not record statistically significant differences: the mean ASES score was 92.9 (TD) and 90.8 (TT); the mean SPADI score was 92.5 (TD), and 89.7 (TT); the mean SST was 8.9 (TD), and 8.4 (TT). Compared to the TD group, in the TT group we registered with greater frequency the "Popeye sign" with a P value < 0.05 (9 cases vs 1), and spasms in the biceps muscle belly (5 cases vs 1). All other signs or symptoms evaluated were more frequent in the TT group, except the strength difference perceived by the patient (3 patients in the TT group, and 2 in the TD group). No complications were recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

This new Long Head of the Biceps (LHB) tenodesis technique is valuable and reliable, and provided better results than tenotomy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Long head BIceps TEnodesis or tenotomy in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: BITE study protocol

Background

Optimal treatment of the diseased long head of the biceps (LHB) tendon during rotator cuff repair remains a topic of debate: tenotomy or tenodesis. A recent meta analysis revealed no difference in strength or functional outcome between treatments. The included studies varied in methodological quality, and only two were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). As strong evidence in favor of either tenotomy or tenodesis is still lacking, we designed this randomized controlled trial to compare functional outcomes after tenotomy and tenodesis when performed in adjunct to arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

Methods

Patients older than 50 years with a supraspinatus and/or infraspinatus tendon rupture sized smaller than 3 cm, who are encountered with LHB pathology, will be randomized to either LHB tenotomy or LHB tenodesis. Clinical and patient-reported data will be collected pre-operatively, 6 weeks, 3 months and 1 year after surgery.

Primary outcome is overall shoulder function evaluated with the Constant score at 1 year after surgery. As additional measures of shoulder function, two patient reported outcomes (the Dutch Oxford Shoulder Test and the Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder and Hand questionnaire) will be assessed. Other evaluations include cosmetic appearance evaluated by the “Popeye” deformity, elbow flexion strength, arm cramping pain, MRI-based location of the biceps tendon, quality of life, and duration of surgery. To detect non-inferiority with a one-sided, two-sample t-test with 80 % power and a significance level (alpha) of 0.025, the required sample size is 98 patients.

Discussion

Treatment of LHB tendon lesions is performed differently around the world and meta analyses do not provide conclusive evidence in favor of one of these treatments. This study will strengthen evidence on the risks and benefits of LHB tenotomy and tenodesis in adjunct to a rotator cuff repair, which is important for managing patient expectations.

Trial registration

Dutch Trial Register (NTR3255) January 12, 2012, ClinicalTrials.gov (ID NCT02655848) January 14, 2016, retrospectively registered.