Open subpectoral vs. arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis: A comparison study of clinical outcomes

Higher complication rate is associated with suprapectoral biceps tenodesis as compared to subpectoral tenodesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

INTRODUCTION

Biceps tenodesis techniques can be grouped into open or arthroscopic according to surgical approach, and into subpectoral or suprapectoral according to location of fixation. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to critically analyse the current evidence with regard to comparing two methods of biceps tenodesis, viz subpectoral vs supratenodesis.

METHODS

Primary electronic search was conducted on MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for published literature from year of inception to August 2024. The current review included any prospective or retrospective English studies that evaluated the outcomes of suprapectoral versus subpectoral. Primary outcomes of interest were American shoulder and elbow society (ASES) score, constant score (CS), UCLA score, SST score, VAS, and complications. The secondary outcomes of interest was range of movements.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included in our quantitative analysis, comprising three RCTs and ten non-randomized comparative studies. ASES score was slightly higher in most of studies in favour of subpectoral tenodesis [95% CI (- 1.35, 0.10); I2 = 43%] (P > 0.05). We found no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.81), although the subpectoral tenodesis group had slightly higher mean CS 95% CI (- 0.95, 0.85), p = 0.81, I2 = 0%]. Our meta-analysis found a slightly higher SST in suprapectoral tenodesis group [95% CI (- 0.18, 0.49); I2 = 0%], while higher UCLA scores [P = 0.98; 95% CI (- 0.52, 0.50); I2 = 45%] in the subpectoral group (P > 0.05). Higher overall complication rate was noted with suprapectoral tenodesis group [OR 2.65; 95% CI (1.57, 4.45), I2 = 49%] (P = 0.0002).

CONCLUSION

Both the techniques of biceps tenodesis have shown comparable functional outcomes in most of the trials. On performing meta-analysis, suprapectoral tenodesis was associated with higher rate postoperative complications. Hence, it is advisable to choose subpectoral tenodesis, as and when possible.

Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis using press-fit bony plug: a case series study

PURPOSE

To assess the feasibility, operative time, clinical outcomes, possible complications, and failure rates of all-through arthroscopic biceps tenodesis using press-fit bony plug technique.

METHODS

This prospective case series study involved 30 skeletally mature patients with long head of biceps pathology (tendinitis after failure of conservative treatment, subluxation, dislocation, or tendon tears). All patients were followed up for 24 months at least.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients regained full shoulder and elbow range of motion; one case suffered from reflex sympathetic dystrophy. There was a significant improvement in the constant, ASES, and VAS scores when comparing the pre-operative and post-operative values. The average biceps strength was 96% compared to the opposite healthy side. No cases were complicated by neuro-vascular deficits or failure of the tenodesis.

CONCLUSION

Press-fit biceps tenodesis is safe and accessible with low economic demands. We recommend this technique to be used more often when addressing patients with long head of biceps pathologies.

REGISTRATION DATA

Registration number: N-1562023. Registration date: June 2022 "Retrospectively registered".

Subpectoral, Suprapectoral, and Top-of-Groove Biceps Tenodesis Procedures Lead to Similar Good Clinical Outcomes: Comparison of Biceps Tenodesis Procedures

Purpose

To determine whether there is a difference in clinical results among open subpectoral (SB), arthroscopic low-in-groove suprapectoral (SP), and arthroscopic top-of-groove (TOG) locations in terms of patient-reported outcome measures for biceps tenodesis (BT) procedures using a global, self-reporting registry.

Methods

We identified patients who underwent BT surgery in the Surgical Outcomes System registry. The inclusion criteria were isolated primary surgical procedures for BT, excluding patients with rotator cuff and labral repairs. Additional search requirements included repair location and 100% compliance with pretreatment and 2-year follow-up surveys. This study measured clinical outcomes comparing the 3 aforementioned techniques using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score before treatment and at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively. In addition, postoperative VAS pain scores were collected at 2 and 6 weeks. Statistical analysis was conducted using analysis of variance (Kruskal-Wallis test) and the Wilcoxon test.

Results

A total of 1,923 patients from the Surgical Outcomes System registry qualified for the study; of these, 879 underwent the SB technique, 354 underwent the SP technique, and 690 underwent the TOG technique. There was no statistically significant difference in the demographic characteristics among the groups except that the TOG group was older: 60.76 years versus 54.56 years in the SB group and 54.90 years in the SP group (P < .001). In all groups, the ASES score statistically improved from before treatment (mean, 49.29 ± 0.63) to 2 years postoperatively (mean, 86.82 ± 0.80; P < .05). There were no statistically significant differences among the 3 groups in the VAS, ASES, and SANE scores at all time points (P > .12) except for the VAS score at 1 year (P = .032) and the ASES score at 3 months (P = .0159). At 1 year, the mean VAS score in the SB group versus the TOG group was 1.146 ± 1.27 versus 1.481 ± 1.62 (P = .032), but the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was not met. The 3-month ASES Index scores in the SB, SP, and TOG groups were 68.991 ± 18.64, 66.499 ± 17.89, and 67.274 ± 16.9, respectively (P = .0159), and similarly, the MCID was not met. At 2 years, the ASES scores in the SB, SP, and TOG groups improved from 49.986 ± 18.68, 49.54 ± 16.86, and 49.697 ± 7.84, respectively, preoperatively to 86.00 ± 18.09, 87.60 ± 17.69, and 86.86 ± 16.36, respectively, postoperatively (P > .12).

Conclusions

The SB, SP, and TOG BT procedures each resulted in excellent clinical improvement based on patient-reported outcome measures from a global registry. On the basis of the MCID, no technique was clinically superior to the other techniques in terms of VAS, ASES, or SANE scores at any time point up to 2 years.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

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.

Histopathology of long head of biceps tendon removed during tenodesis demonstrates degenerative histopathology and not inflammatory changes

Background

The aim of this study is to describe and quantitatively analyze the histopathology of proximal long head biceps (LHB) tendinopathy in patients who have undergone LHB tenodesis. The hypothesis is that severe histopathologic changes of the LHB tendon (LHBT) will most likely be reflected with improved postoperative clinical outcomes.

Methods

The study included patients with isolated LHB tendinopathy or LHB tendinopathy associated with concomitant shoulder pathologies. All had failed conservative treatment (12 months) and had a positive pain response (> 50% reduction) pre-operatively after LHB tendon injection with local anesthetic. All underwent biceps tenodesis procedure between 2008 and 2014. Tendon specimens were collected and histologically analyzed with the semi-quantitative Bonar scoring system. Minimum follow-up time was 1 year. A subset of patients was retrospectively reviewed postoperatively and evaluated employing visual analogue score (VAS), short form survey (SF-12), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon (ASES) score, Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, and Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) and postoperative return to work status.

Results

Forty-five biceps tendon specimens were obtained from 44 patients (mean age 50 ± 9.6 years). Histopathological analyses demonstrated advanced degenerative changes with myxoid degeneration and marked collagen disorganization. Minimal inflammation was identified. There were no regional differences in histopathological changes. Clinical outcomes did not correlate significantly with severity of histopathologic changes.

Conclusions

This study confirms that LHBT specimens in patients undergoing tenodesis demonstrate with the use of the Bonar score histopathologic changes of chronic degeneration and not inflammation. The correct histopathologic terminology for this process is LHB tendinosis. The histopathological changes appear uniform throughout the entire length of the LHBT which may inform the nature of the procedure performed.

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.

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.