Clinical and Biomechanical Evaluation of an All-Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Biceps Tenodesis

Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Biceps Tenodesis Using Standard Portals

The long head of the biceps (LHB) tendon is a common cause of shoulder pain. Biceps tenodesis is commonly used to address biceps and superior labrum pathology, reducing pain and restoring function. There are numerous techniques for biceps tenodesis, and it is unclear as to which single technique and approach provides significantly superior outcomes. In this technical note, we present an arthroscopic suprapectoral approach with release of the LHB from the bicipital groove and subsequent fixation with suture anchor. This technique simplifies the technique to be performed from standard arthroscopic portals and aims to maximize outcomes and minimize common complications associated with biceps 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.

How Long Does It Take to Achieve Clinically Significant Outcomes After Isolated Biceps Tenodesis?

Background:

Clinically significant outcomes (CSOs) connect patient-reported outcome measures data to patient-perceived benefit. Although investigators have established threshold values for various CSOs, the timeline to achieve these outcomes after isolated biceps tenodesis (BT) has yet to be defined.

Purpose:

To define the time-dependent nature of minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) achievement after isolated BT.

Study Design:

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES), the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and the Constant-Murley score (CMS) were administered preoperatively and at 6 and 12 months postoperatively to patients undergoing isolated BT between 2014 and 2018 at our institution. Cumulative probabilities for achieving MCID, SCB, and PASS were calculated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Weibull parametric regression evaluated the hazard ratios (HRs) of achieving earlier MCID, SCB, and PASS.

Results:

Overall cohort (N = 190) achievement rates ranged between 77.8% and 83.2% for MCID, between 42.2% and 80.2% for SCB, and between 59.7% and 62.9% for PASS. Median achievement time was 5.3 to 6.1 months for MCID, 5.9 to 6.4 months for SCB, and 6.07 to 6.1 months for PASS. Multivariate Weibull parametric regression identified older age, male sex, higher body mass index, preoperative thyroid disease, smoking history, and higher preoperative CMS as predictors of delayed CSO achievement (HR, 1.01-6.41), whereas normal tendon on arthroscopy, defined as absence of tenosynovitis or tendon tear on arthroscopy, predicted earlier CSO achievement (HR, 0.19-0.46). Location of tenodesis and worker compensation status did not significantly predict the time to achieve CSOs on multivariate analysis.

Conclusion:

After isolated BT, patients can expect to attain CSO by 13 months postoperatively, with most patients achieving this between 5 and 8 months. Patients tend to take longer to achieve PASS than MCID and SCB.

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.

Measurements of Tendon Movement Within the Bicipital Groove After Suprapectoral Intra-articular Biceps Tenodesis in a Cadaveric Model

Background

Lesions of the long head of the biceps can be successfully treated with biceps tenotomy or tenodesis when surgical management is elected. The advantage of a tenodesis is that it prevents the potential development of a cosmetic deformity or cramping muscle pain. Proponents of a subpectoral tenodesis believe that "groove pain" may remain a problem after suprapectoral tenodesis as a result of persistent motion of the tendon within the bicipital groove.

Purpose/Hypothesis

To evaluate the motion of the biceps tendon within the bicipital groove before and after a suprapectoral intra-articular tenodesis. The hypothesis was that there would be minimal to no motion of the biceps tendon within the bicipital groove after tenodesis.

Study Design

Controlled laboratory study.

Methods

Six fresh-frozen cadaveric arms were dissected to expose the long head of the biceps tendon as well as the bicipital groove. Inclinometers and fiducials (optical markers) were used to measure the motions of the scapula, forearm, and biceps tendon through a full range of shoulder and elbow motions. A suprapectoral biceps tenodesis was then performed, and the motions were repeated. The motion of the biceps tendon was quantified as a function of scapular or forearm motion in each plane, both before and after the tenodesis.

Results

There was minimal motion of the native biceps tendon during elbow flexion and extension but significant motion during all planes of scapular motion before tenodesis, with the most motion occurring during shoulder flexion-extension (20.73 ± 8.21 mm). The motion of the biceps tendon after tenodesis was significantly reduced during every plane of scapular motion compared with the native state (P < .01 in all planes of motion), with a maximum motion of only 1.57 mm.

Conclusion

There was a statistically significant reduction in motion of the biceps tendon in all planes of scapular motion after the intra-articular biceps tenodesis. The motion of the biceps tendon within the bicipital groove was essentially eliminated after the suprapectoral biceps tenodesis.

Clinical Relevance

This arthroscopic suprapectoral tenodesis technique can significantly reduce motion of the biceps tendon within the groove in this cadaveric study, possibly reducing the likelihood of groove pain in the clinical setting.

Influence of workers' compensation status on postoperative outcomes in patients following biceps tenodesis: a matched-pair cohort analysis

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS

Although the literature on the association of workers' compensation (WC) status with negative outcomes after orthopedic surgery is extensive, there is a paucity of evidence on outcomes in WC recipients undergoing biceps tenodesis. We hypothesized that WC patients would report significantly worse outcomes postoperatively on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHODS

Functional and health-related quality-of-life PROMs and a visual analog scale score for pain were administered preoperatively and at 12 months postoperatively to consecutive patients undergoing isolated biceps tenodesis between 2014 and 2018 at our institution. Thirty-eight WC patients were matched 1:2 to non-WC patients by age, body mass index, and operative limb. The minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptom state were calculated for all patients via anchor- and distribution-based methods. Rates of achievement and the likelihood of achievement were determined.

RESULTS

All patients showed significant improvements in all outcome measures (P < .001). WC patients reported inferior postoperative scores on all PROMs examined. WC status significantly predicted a reduced likelihood of achieving substantial clinical benefit for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (odds ratio [OR], 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17-0.81; P = .01) and the patient acceptable symptom state (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.65; P = .003) for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.10-0.61; P = .003), Constant-Murley Subjective Assessment (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.08-0.77; P = .016), and visual analog scale pain score (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.16-0.47; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

WC patients reported inferior scores on all postoperative PROMs and demonstrated lower odds of achieving substantial benefit and satisfaction regarding improvements in both function and pain compared with non-WC patients.

The American Society of Shoulder and Elbow Therapists' consensus statement on rehabilitation for anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty

Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty is the gold standard shoulder replacement procedure for patients with an intact rotator cuff and sufficient glenoid bone to accommodate prosthetic glenoid implant and offers reliable patient satisfaction, excellent implant longevity, and a low incidence of complications. Disparity exists in the literature regarding rehabilitation strategies following anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. This article presents a consensus statement from experts in the field on rehabilitation following anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. The goal of this consensus statement is to provide a current evidence-based foundation to inform the rehabilitation process after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. These guidelines apply to anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (replacement of the humeral head and glenoid), hemiarthroplasty (replacing only the humeral head), and hemiarthroplasty with glenoid reaming or resurfacing. The consensus statement integrates an extensive literature review, as well as survey results of the practice patterns of members of the American Society of Shoulder and Elbow Therapists and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons. Three stages of recovery are proposed, which initially protect and then gradually load soft tissue affected by the surgical procedure, such as the subscapularis, for optimal patient outcomes. The proposed guidelines should be used in collaboration with surgeon preferences and patient-specific factors.

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.

Editorial Commentary: Biceps Tenodesis Fixation: Screw, Button, or None of the Above?

Clinical outcomes following shoulder subpectoral biceps tenodesis are generally favorable, with a very low complication rate (2%). One of the most devastating complications following this procedure is the occurrence of a proximal humerus fracture. Although all constructs have their unique advantages and disadvantages, creating a smaller bone hole while achieving good biomechanical outcomes is worth considering. This may be most advantageous in overhead-throwing athletes, tennis players, and/or volleyball athletes, who subject their shoulders to more torsional load due to the requirements of their sport. Thus, in addition to screws and buttons, smaller-diameter suture anchors could also be thoughtfully considered as a biceps tenodesis fixation option.

Are Implant Choice and Surgical Approach Associated With Biceps Tenodesis Construct Strength? A Systematic Review and Meta-regression

BACKGROUND

Despite the increasing use of biceps tenodesis, there is a lack of consensus regarding optimal implant choice (suture anchor vs interference screw) and implant placement (suprapectoral vs subpectoral).

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The purpose was to determine the associations of procedural parameters with the biomechanical performance of biceps tenodesis constructs. The authors hypothesized that ultimate failure load (UFL) would not differ between sub- and suprapectoral repairs or between interference screw and suture anchor constructs and that the number of implants and number of sutures would be positively associated with construct strength.

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

METHODS

The authors conducted a systematic literature search for studies that measured the biomechanical performance of biceps tenodesis repairs in human cadaveric specimens. Two independent reviewers extracted data from studies that met the inclusion criteria. Meta-regression was then performed on the pooled data set. Outcome variables were UFL and mode of failure. Procedural parameters (fixation type, fixation site, implant diameter, and numbers of implants and sutures used) were included as covariates. Twenty-five biomechanical studies, representing 494 cadaveric specimens, met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The use of interference screws (vs suture anchors) was associated with a mean 86 N-greater UFL (95% CI, 34-138 N; P = .002). Each additional suture used to attach the tendon to the implant was associated with a mean 53 N-greater UFL (95% CI, 24-81 N; P = .001). Multivariate analysis found no significant association between fixation site and UFL. Finally, the use of suture anchors and fewer number of sutures were both independently associated with lower odds of native tissue failure as opposed to implant pullout.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that fixation with interference screws, rather than suture anchors, and the use of more sutures are associated with greater biceps tenodesis strength, as well as higher odds of native tissue failure versus implant pullout. Although constructs with suture anchors show inferior UFL compared with those with interference screws, incorporation of additional sutures may increase the strength of suture anchor constructs. Supra- and subpectoral repairs provide equivalent biomechanical strength when controlling for potential confounders.

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.

Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis With PEEK Interference Screw: A Biomechanical Analysis of Humeral Fracture Risk

PURPOSE

To quantify the torsional load to fracture for subpectoral biceps tenodesis with interference screw fixation.

METHODS

We randomized 28 specimens from 14 matched-pair full-length humeri (mean age, 55.3 years) into 3 groups: (1) empty ream group (ERG), (2) screw-only group (SOG), and (3) screw-plus-biceps tendon group (SBG). In each group, 1 humerus of each matched pair was prepared according to group allocation and the contralateral humerus remained intact as a control. In the ERG, an 8-mm unicortical hole was reamed 1 cm proximal to the inferior border of the pectoralis major tendon insertion; in the SOG, the humerus was filled with an 8-mm × 12-mm PEEK (polyether ether ketone) screw; and in the SBG, the humerus was filled with a PEEK screw and the cadaveric long head of the biceps tendon. Humeri were tested under torsional displacement at a rate of 1°/s until fracture. Maximum torque, energy to maximum torque, and linear stiffness were used to assess humerus strength.

RESULTS

Compared with contralateral intact specimens, the maximum torque to fracture was reduced by 28% in the ERG (P = .005), 30% in the SOG (P = .014), and 20% in the SBG (P = .046). Energy to maximum torque was similarly reduced in the ERG (P = .007), SOG (P = .023), and SBG (P = .049). Stiffness was increased by 4% in the ERG (P = .498), 9% in the SOG (P = .030), and 4% in the SBG (P = .439).

CONCLUSIONS

Drilling an 8-mm unicortical hole in zone 3 of the bicipital tunnel for open subpectoral biceps tenodesis reduces the torsional load to humeral fracture up to 28% at time 0. The addition of a PEEK tenodesis screw alone reduced the maximum torque by 30%, and the addition of a screw with the long head of the biceps tendon reduced the maximum torque by 20%. The total load to fracture was reduced in all settings. Stiffness was not significantly different for the ERG and SBG, but stiffness was significantly higher for the SOG compared with the intact matched humeri at time 0.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

When performing a biceps tenodesis, humeral fracture susceptibility is increased with an applied torsional load at time 0. Thus providers must be aware of this reduced integrity when a subpectoral biceps tenodesis is used.

Biceps Tenodesis: Biomechanical Assessment of 3 Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Techniques

Biceps tenodesis maintains the cosmetic appearance and length-tension relationship of the biceps with an associated predictable clinical outcome compared with tenotomy. Arthroscopic suprapectoral techniques are being developed to avoid the disadvantages of the open subpectoral approach. This study biomechanically compared 3 arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis techniques performed with a suture anchor with lasso loop technique, an interference screw, and a compressive rivet. For a total of 15 randomized paired tests, 15 pairs of human cadaveric shoulders were used to test 1 technique vs another 5 times with 3 customized setups. Biomechanical testing was performed with an electromechanical testing system. The tendon was preloaded with 10 N and cyclically loaded at 0 to 40 N for 50 cycles. Load to failure testing was performed at 1 mm/s until failure occurred. The compressive rivet, interference screw, and suture anchor with lasso loop had mean load to failure of 97.1 N, 146.4 N, and 157.6 N, respectively. The difference in ultimate strength between the suture anchor with lasso loop and the compressive rivet was statistically significant (P=.04). No significant differences were found between the suture anchor with lasso loop and the interference screw (P=.93) or between the interference screw and the rivet (P=.10). When adjusted for sex, the load to failure overall among the 3 constructs was not significantly different. All 3 techniques had a different predominant mechanism of failure. The suture anchor with lasso loop showed superior load to failure compared with the compressive rivet. The minimum load to failure required to achieve clinically reliable biceps tenodesis is unknown. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(6):e1009-e1016.].

Modified Open Suprapectoral EndoButton Tension Slide Tenodesis Technique of Long Head of Biceps with Restored Tendon Tension-Length

Background:

The vast majority of biceps tendon ruptures occurs at the proximal insertion and almost always involves the long head. There are several options for long head of biceps (LHB) tenodesis with advantage and disadvantages of each technique. We believe that the suprapectoral LHB tenodesis described in this article enables the restoration of the anatomic length-tension relation in a technically reproducible manner, when following the guidelines set forth in this article, and restores biceps contour and function adequately with a low risk of complications.

Method:

We present a case of a young man who had a sudden jerk of his flexed right elbow, while involved in water skiing sports and sustained complete rupture of proximal end of long head of biceps tendon. In this article, we describe a modified surgical technique of open supra-pectoral long head of biceps tenodesis using an EndoButton tension slide technique, reproducing an anatomic length-tension relationship.

Results:

By the end of one year, patient regained symmetrical muscle bulk, shape and contour of biceps compared to other side. There were no signs of dislodgement or loosening of the EndoButton on follow-up radiographs. He regained full muscle power in the biceps without any possible complications, such as humeral fracture, infection, or nerve injury, associated with this technique.

Conclusion:

This technique is a safe, easy to reproduce, cost-effective, less time consuming and an effective method that uses a small drill hole, conserving bone, minimizing trauma to the tendon, and decreasing postoperative complications. It does not need any special instrumentation and is suitable especially for use in centers where arthroscopy facility or training is not available.

All-Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Biceps Tenodesis

Biceps tenodesis is a common treatment for pathology of the long head of the biceps tendon. Several authors have described various arthroscopic and open techniques for biceps tenodesis. Open techniques have been associated with complications such as wound infection and nerve injury. Previously described arthroscopic techniques have placed the tenodesis site within the bicipital groove, which may lead to persistent pain. We describe an all-arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis technique that places the tenodesis site distal to the bicipital groove. This technique potentially avoids the complications associated with open tenodesis surgery while still removing the biceps tendon from the bicipital groove.