Tenodesis of the Long Head of the Biceps: A Review of Indications, Techniques, and Outcomes

The Proximity of the Axillary Nerve During Keyhole Tenodesis of the Long Head of the Biceps Tendon: A Cadaveric Study

Background

Over time, surgical management for conditions involving the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) has evolved. Some techniques, such as keyhole tenodesis proposes bicortical drilling, however, carries an axillary nerve injury risk. The goal of our cadaveric study was to see if we could keep a safe zone between the point of exit of keyhole tenodesis of biceps and axillary nerve.

Methodology

The study was performed on ten shoulders from five fresh frozen cadavers. Between the lower border of the transverse humeral ligament (THL) and the superior margin of the pectoralis major insertion at the lowest limit of the bicipital groove, a beath pin was driven through with the help of the modified tip aimer tibial jig procured from the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL) set, which was fixed at an arc of 45°. The distance between the axillary nerve and beath pin at the exit point was measured.

Results

The biceps tendon musculotendinous junction was followed all the way to the inferiorly and biceps tendon was found in the groove. The average distance from the axillary nerve to the exit point of the beath pin was 17.7 mm (range 14.4-20.9 mm, 95% CI).

Conclusion

The axillary nerve is not injured during bicortical drilling when keyhole tenodesis of biceps is performed at the distal limit of the groove of biceps. The area in the biciptal groove between inferior margin of THL and superior border of pectoralis major insertion is safe area for biceps tenodesis.

Arthroscopic Modified Double-Row Biceps Tenodesis versus Labral Repair for the Treatment of Isolated Type II SLAP Lesions in Non-Overhead Athletes

Objective

To evaluate the postoperative efficacy and the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic modified double‐row biceps tenodesis versus labral repair.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted in 56 patients with isolated type II superior labrum anterior and posterior (SLAP) lesions from March 2015 to November 2018. Thirty patients (male:female = 17:13) were treated with labral repair, and 26 patients (male:female = 15:11) were treated with modified double‐row biceps tenodesis. The average age of the labral repair group and the modified double‐row biceps tenodesis group were 42.8 ± 10.6 and 40.9 ± 10.2 years, respectively. Pre‐ and postoperative assessments with the visual analog scale (VAS), University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores were compared between the two treatment groups. Additional outcome measures included patient satisfaction, the time to return to previous activities, workers' compensation status, and postoperative complications.

Results

At a 2‐year follow‐up, the tenodesis group showed significant differences in postoperative VAS (1.5 to 1.8, respectively; p = 0.008), patient satisfaction (92.3% vs. 46.7%, p < 0.001), and recovery time to return to their previous activities (6.8 ± 1.8 vs. 8.1 ± 1.5, p = 0.007) compared to the labral repair group; however, there was no significant difference in postoperative ASES and UCLA scores between the two groups. Additionally, one patient in the tenodesis group developed persistent postoperative stiffness, which was resolved by conservative treatment. In the labral repair group, two patients presented with persistent postoperative night pain, three developed persistent postoperative stiffness, and two required a subsequent capsular release.

Conclusions

Compared with the labral repair group, the arthroscopic modified double‐row biceps tenodesis showed more encouraging postoperative pain reduction, earlier recovery to previous activities, and higher patient satisfaction.

No Difference in Clinical Outcomes for Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Versus Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis at Midterm Follow-up: A Randomized Prospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

We have previously reported the 1-year outcomes of arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (ASPBT) versus open subpectoral biceps tenodesis (OSPBT) for the management of long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) pathology. While patients had similar 1-year biceps muscle strength and pain, longer-term functional outcomes are unknown.

PURPOSE

To directly compare clinical outcomes of ASPBT versus OSPBT with interference screw fixation, distal to the bony bicipital groove, at a minimum of 2 years' follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

METHODS

A total of 85 patients undergoing biceps tenodesis (BT) for LHBT disease were randomized into the ASPBT or OSPBT group. Both techniques utilized polyether ether ketone inference screws for tenodesis fixation. Patients completed American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Constant subjective, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) questionnaires preoperatively and again at 6 months, 12 months, and at the final follow-up at a minimum of 24 months.

RESULTS

A total of 73 patients (37/42 randomized to ASPBT [88%]; 36/42 randomized to OSPBT [86%]) with a mean age of 50.4 ± 10.3 years and a mean body mass index of 29 ± 7.9 were included in clinical outcome analyses. The mean final follow-up was 2.9 years (ASPBT, 3 years; OSPBT, 2.8 years [range 2-5.2 years]). Comparison of demographic characteristics and intraoperative findings showed no significant differences in age, sex, concomitant procedures, and rotator cuff disease. No statistically significant differences in the ASES (P = .25), Constant subjective (P = .52), and SANE scores (P = .61) were found at the final follow-up. Clinical outcomes scores showed no significant improvement from a mean of 12.6 months to the final follow-up at 34.5 months (ASPBT: ASES, P = .43; Constant, P = .25; SANE, P = .45 vs OSPBT: ASES, P = .65; Constant, P = .78; SANE, P = .70). No patients required revision of BT in either group.

CONCLUSION

This study reported a minimum of 2-year follow-up of patients undergoing ASPBT or OSPBT, utilizing the same interference screw technique, for the management of LHBT pathology in the setting of concomitant shoulder procedures. There were no significant differences in patient-reported outcomes and complication rates found at any time point.

REGISTRATION

NCT02192073 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Predicting Patient Satisfaction With Maximal Outcome Improvement After Biceps Tenodesis

The goal of this study was to determine the threshold for achieving maximal outcome improvement (MOI) on the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and Constant-Murley (CM) questionnaires that predict satisfaction after isolated biceps tenodesis without concomitant rotator cuff repair. A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed for patients undergoing isolated biceps tenodesis from 2014 to 2017 at a single institution with minimum 6-month follow-up. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to determine thresholds for MOI for the ASES, SANE, and CM questionnaires. Stepwise multivariate logistical regression analysis was performed to identify predictors for achieving the threshold for MOI. A total of 123 patients were included in the final analysis. Receiver operating characteristic analysis determined that achieving 43.1%, 62.1%, and 61.4% MOI was the threshold for satisfaction for the ASES, SANE, and CM questionnaires, respectively. Regression analysis showed that concomitant superior labrum anterior-posterior (SLAP) repair was predictive of achieving MOI on the ASES and SANE questionnaires, whereas partial rotator cuff tear was predictive of achieving MOI on the CM questionnaire (P<.05 for both). Further, workers' compensation status, diabetes, history of ipsilateral shoulder surgery, and hypertension were negative predictors of achieving MOI on the SANE and CM questionnaires (P<.05 for all). Achieving MOI of 43.1%, 62.1%, and 61.4% is the threshold for satisfaction after biceps tenodesis for the ASES, SANE, and CM questionnaires, respectively. Concomitant SLAP repair was positively predictive of achieving MOI, whereas workers' compensation status, diabetes, history of ipsilateral shoulder surgery, and hypertension were negative predictors. [Orthopedics. 2021;44(3):e359-e366.].

Subpectoral versus suprapectoral biceps tenodesis yields similar clinical outcomes: a systematic review

IMPORTANCE

Arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (ABT) and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis (OBT) are two surgical treatment options for relief of long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) pathology and superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) tears. There is insufficient knowledge regarding the clinical superiority of one technique over the other.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the literature in order to compare the clinical outcomes and safety of ABT and OBT for treatment of LHBT or SLAP pathology.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Embase to identify studies that compared the clinical efficacy of ABT versus OBT. The search phrase used was: (bicep OR biceps OR biceps brachii OR long head of biceps brachii OR biceps tendinopathy) AND (tenodesis). Patients were assessed based on the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score, the visual analogue scale, the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, Constant-Murley Score, clinical failure, range of motion, bicipital groove pain and strength. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed, and both the Cochrane Collaboration's and Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) risk of bias tools were used to evaluate risk of bias.

FINDINGS

Eight studies (one level I, seven level III) met inclusion criteria, including 326 patients undergoing ABT and 381 patients undergoing OBT. No differences were found in treatment failure rates or patient-reported outcome scores between groups in any study. One study found OBT patients to experience significantly increased range of shoulder forward flexion when compared with ABT patients (p=0.049). Two studies found ABT patients to experience significantly more postoperative stiffness when compared with OBT patients (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing ABT and OBT can be expected to experience similar improvements in clinical outcomes at latest follow-up without differences treatment failure or functional performance. ABT patients may experience an increased incidence of stiffness in the early postoperative period.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

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.

Influence of mental health on postoperative outcomes in patients following biceps tenodesis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the relationship between preoperative mental health measured by the Short-Form 12 health survey mental component score and outcomes after isolated biceps tenodesis.

METHODS

The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons form (ASES), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), Constant-Murley score (CMS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain were administered preoperatively and at 6 and 12 months postoperatively to consecutive patients undergoing isolated biceps tenodesis between 2014 and 2018. Minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit (SCB), patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS), and rates of achievement were calculated. Patients were stratified by mental health status based on preoperative scores on the Short-Form 12 health survey mental component score. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to evaluate preoperative mental health status on achievement of minimal clinically important difference, SCB, and PASS.

RESULTS

Patients demonstrated significant improvements in all outcome measures (P < .001). Patients with depression reported inferior postoperative scores on all patient-reported outcome measures. Low preoperative mental health score significantly predicted reduced likelihood to achieve SCB (odds ratio [OR]: 0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.17-0.81, P = .01) and PASS (OR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.12-0.65, P = .003) on the ASES form, SANE (OR: 0.24, 95% CI: 0.10-0.61, P = .003), CMS (OR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.08-0.77, P = .016), and VAS pain (OR: 0.01, 95% CI: 0.00-0.31, P = .008).

CONCLUSION

Patients with depression reported inferior scores on all postoperative patient-reported outcome measures and demonstrated lower odds of achieving the SCB and PASS on the ASES form and PASS on the SANE, CMS, and VAS pain, compared with nondepressed patients.

Relationship between the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computer adaptive testing and legacy instruments in patients undergoing isolated biceps tenodesis

HYPOTHESIS

The purpose of this study was to correlate the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computer adaptive testing (CAT) domains with commonly used legacy patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) preoperatively in a population of patients presenting to a tertiary care orthopedic center for biceps and labral pathology.

METHODS

Prospective data were collected on 175 patients scheduled to undergo isolated biceps tenodesis at a tertiary center. Enrollees completed legacy scores (Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey, Short Form 12, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES] Assessment Form, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and Constant-Murley score) and PROMIS CAT questionnaires (Upper Extremity [UE], Pain Interference [PIF], and Depression). In addition, patients were asked to provide an assessment of the strength, function, and pain of the affected shoulder using a custom visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaire. Spearman rank correlations of the PROMIS CAT with legacy measures and the custom VAS were calculated. Floor and ceiling effects were assessed.

RESULTS

The UE CAT yielded moderate correlations with the ASES score (r = 0.57) and the custom VAS strength score (r = 0.50-0.57). The PIF CAT demonstrated moderate correlations with the VAS pain score (r = 0.45) and high-moderate correlations with the ASES score, VR6D score, and UE CAT (r = 0.61-0.66). The Depression CAT demonstrated high-moderate correlations with the mental health legacy measures (r = -0.64 to -0.61). There was a significant relative floor effect for the Depression CAT at a score of 34.2 (19%).

CONCLUSION

The PIF CAT was comparable to the ASES score, the current gold standard. Compared with legacy measures, both the UE CAT and PIF CAT are less burdensome and have few floor or ceiling effects. The PIF CAT may be a viable alternative to describe the physical and psychosocial impact of pain in biceps tenodesis patients.

Arthroscopic Suprapectoral and Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodeses Produce Similar Outcomes: A Randomized Prospective Analysis

PURPOSE

To directly compare subjective and objective outcomes of arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (ASPBT) below the bicipital groove and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis (OSPBT) performed with interference screw fixation.

METHODS

A total of 77 patients indicated for biceps tenodesis who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were randomized into the ASPBT and OSPBT groups. All tenodesis procedures implemented PEEK (polyether ether ketone) interference screws. Patients underwent a clinical examination that included range of motion and strength assessment at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Patients completed the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, and Constant score preoperatively and at 6 and 12 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients were analyzed with a mean age of 50.3 ± 10.4 years and a mean body mass index of 28.9 ± 6.3. All patients had arthroscopic evidence of biceps pathology and underwent either an ASPBT (n = 37) or OSPBT (n = 38). The surgical time was significantly greater for ASPBT than for OSPBT (16.9 ± 8.4 minutes vs 9.8 ± 3.1 minutes, P < .001). One patient underwent conversion from the ASPBT group to the OSPBT group because of shearing of a severely attenuated tendon preventing an ASPBT. No significant difference (P > .05) was found in strength or anterior shoulder pain at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year, and no significant difference (P > .05) was found in clinical outcome scores (ASES, Constant subjective, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation) between the 2 groups at 6 months and 1 year. The improvement in the ASES score exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (12 points) in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

No differences in patient-reported outcome measures, functional outcomes, or complication rates were found after ASPBT compared with OSPBT. However, the results of this investigation must be interpreted with caution because this study may be underpowered to detect statistical differences.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, randomized controlled trial.

Arthroscopic Tenodesis of the Long Head Biceps Tendon Using a Double Lasso-Loop Suture Anchor Configuration

Multiple different techniques exist for performing a biceps tenodesis, and the literature has yet to define a particular technique as superior with respect to outcomes. Factors as the center of various clinical and biomechanical studies include analyzing arthroscopic versus open techniques, optimal fixation sites, and the use specific fixation devices (i.e., anchor, screw). This article details an all-arthroscopic approach for proximal tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) using a 2-portal method in a minimally invasive manner. Optimal biomechanical fixation of the LHBT is achieve by using 2 suture anchors in the creation of a dual lasso-loop configuration at the level of the bicipital groove. Technical pearls with respect to optimal arthroscopic viewing, efficient identification of the LHBT and subsequent release from the bicipital groove, and appropriate use of suture anchors for lasso-loop creation are presented for review. Two specific technical advantages of this technique include 2 fixation points for the LHBT to minimize failure risk, and smaller drill holes when compared with commonly performed tenodesis screw techniques to theoretically limit humeral fracture risk.

A biomechanical comparison of two arthroscopic suture techniques in biceps tenodesis: whip-stitch vs. simple suture techniques

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical performance of whip-stitch (WS) and simple suture techniques (SST) of the long head of the biceps tendon in suprapectoral intraosseous tenodesis with interference screw fixation.

METHODS

A total of 10 paired cadavers (61.1 ± 4.6 years) were randomized to receive WS or SST biceps tenodesis beginning at the musculotendinous junction. Both groups implemented a No. 2 FiberLoop wire and underwent suprapectoral fixation with a polyetheretherketone interference screw at the bicipital grove. A Materials Testing System performed cyclic testing (500 cycles), followed by load to failure at 1 mm/s. Load, displacement, and time were recorded during cyclic and failure testing. A 2-tailed Student's t-test and χ² analysis were performed for failure load and mode of failure, respectively.

RESULTS

Two SST specimens and 1 WS specimen failed during cyclic loading via tendon rupture at the screw-tendon interface. There was no significant statistical difference in the cyclic displacement after 500 cycles between the WS (12.9 mm ± 4.4 mm) and SST groups (14.0 mm ± 3.8 mm, P = .2); cyclic strain, defined as the peak displacement at the 500th cycle divided by the initial gauge length, between the WS (0.4 ± 0.2) and SST groups (0.7 ± 0.7, P = .3); maximal load (162.7 N ± 56.8 N vs. 153.1 N ± 39.3 N, respectively, P = .6); and stiffness (50.5 N/mm ± 17.7 N/mm vs. 43.3 N/mm ± 10.9 N/mm, respectively, P = .3). All specimens ruptured at the screw-tendon interface.

CONCLUSION

The WS technique can provide equivalent biomechanical performance to the SST in suprapectoral intraosseous biceps tenodesis with interference screw fixation.

Arthroscopic Suprapectoral and Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis: Radiographic Characteristics

PURPOSE

To provide a detailed account of the location of the long head of the biceps (LHB) tenodesis tunnels using an all-arthroscopic suprapectoral technique in a prospective group of patients. These patients were then compared with a retrospective group of open subpectoral tenodesis patients of similar characteristics.

METHODS

Postoperative radiographs from a prospective group of all-arthroscopic suprapectoral LHB tenodeses were compared with a retrospective group of open subpectoral tenodeses. Digital anteroposterior images were used to measure distances from clinically pertinent radiographic landmarks to tenodesis tunnel sites.

RESULTS

Forty patients (20 all-arthroscopic, 20 open) met the inclusion criteria. The inferior border of the bicipital groove was located a mean distance of 33.7 ± 6.9 mm from the top of the humeral head. The mean distance measured in the open group was approximately 28 mm (P < .001) distal compared with the arthroscopic group. The humeral diameter was 7.5 ± 5.4 mm narrower at the subpectoral tenodesis site (P < .001). All 20 patients in the open subpectoral group had tenodesis tunnels placed distal to the bicipital groove compared with 17 of 20 patients (85%) in the all-arthroscopic group. There were 2 cases of lateral wall cortical reaming during subpectoral tenodesis but no periprosthetic humeral fractures. There were 2 cases of bicortical reaming during the all-arthroscopic tenodesis with no known complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The location of biceps tenodesis significantly differs between all-arthroscopic suprapectoral and open subpectoral techniques, and the open subpectoral method achieves fixation in a significantly narrower region of the humerus.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.