Modified subpectoral biceps tenodesis

Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Using an All-Suture Anchor

Long head biceps tendon pathology is a substantial contributor to anterior shoulder pain and often requires surgical intervention to offer a return to normal functionality. Surgical treatment options consist of both open and arthroscopic tenodesis or tenotomy of the long head biceps brachii. Several techniques exist for tenodesis and tenotomy of the biceps, although current debate continues regarding which surgical approach is the optimal intervention for symptomatic bicep pathology. In this technical note, we describe a subpectoral biceps tenodesis of the long head bicep tendon using an all-suture anchor. Our technique offers the advantages of using an all-suture anchor that incorporates a self-tensioning mechanism with direct visualization of the tendon during biceps tenodesis and anchor insertion.

Bone fixation techniques for managing joint disorders and injuries: A review study

The majority of surgical procedures treating joint disorders require a technique to realize a firm implant-to-tissue and/or a tissue-to-tissue fixation. Fixation methods have direct effects on survival, performance and integration of orthopedic implants This review paper gives an overview of novel fixation techniques that have been evaluated and optimized for orthopaedic joint implants and could be alternatives for traditional implant fixation techniques or inspirations for future design of joint implantation procedures.

METHOD

The articles were selected using the Scopus search engine. Key words referring to traditional fixation methods have been excluded to find potential innovative fixation techniques. In order to review the recent anchorage systems, only articles that been published during the period of 2010-2020 have been included.

RESULTS

A total of 57 studies were analyzed. The result revealed that three main fixation principles are being employed: using mechanical interlockings, employing adhesives, and performing tissue-bonding strategies.

CONCLUSION

The development of fixation techniques demonstrates a transformation from the general anchoring tools like K-wires toward application-specific designs. Several new methods have been designed and evaluated, which highlight encouraging results as described in this review. It seems that mechanical fixations provide the strongest anchorage. Employing (bio)-adhesives as fixation tool could revolutionize the field of orthopedic surgery. However, the adhesives must be improved and optimized to meet the requirements of an anchorage system. Long-term fixation might be formed by tissue ingrowth approaches which showed promising results. In most cases further clinical studies are required to explore their outputs in clinical applications.

Mini-Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Using a Suture Anchor with Bone-Bridge Backup

Pathology of the long head of the biceps tendon is a known cause of anterior shoulder pain. Current surgical management options include tenotomy and tenodesis. Tenodesis can be performed arthroscopically or as an open procedure. Arthroscopic tenodesis typically uses a suprapectoral attachment, which may fail to address tendon pathology in the bicipital groove. Open tenodesis carries iatrogenic risk to neurovascular structures and a fracture risk while drilling, as well as the morbidity of an open procedure. This technique paper describes a mini-open subpectoral approach using a suture anchor and bone bridge backup for dual fixation. Use of a suture anchor instead of an interference screw reduces drill hole diameter reducing the risk of iatrogenic humeral fracture. Dual fixation provides a robust repair which may be of use for athletic patients desiring an accelerated recovery.

Proximal Biceps Tenodesis Incorporated into Supraspinatus Repair: A Case Series and Technical Description

Background:

Biceps tendon pathology is commonly associated with rotator cuff tears. A multitude of different biceps tenodesis techniques have been studied, with limited clinical data on arthroscopic biceps tenodesis techniques incorporated into rotator cuff repairs.

Purpose:

To evaluate the outcomes of an arthroscopic biceps tenodesis incorporated into a supraspinatus tendon repair.

Study Design:

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

Patients undergoing surgical treatment of supraspinatus tendon tears with concomitant biceps tendon pathology were prospectively enrolled from 2014 to 2015. A total of 32 patients underwent combined biceps tenodesis and rotator cuff repair; of these, 19 patients were evaluated for a mean of 2.0 years. The primary outcome measures were the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES; patient self-report and physician assessment sections), visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, responses to specific biceps-related assessments, and biceps specific physical exam findings.

Results:

Patient-reported ASES scores improved from 45.9 preoperatively to 91.6 at the 2-year follow-up (P < .001). Pain VAS scores improved from 5.2 preoperatively to 0.7 at the 2-year follow-up (P < .001). Preoperatively, 18 patients had a positive Speed test; all were negative at 5 months postoperatively, and 21 patients had bicipital groove tenderness preoperatively, which resolved in all 21 patients at 5 months postoperatively. At the 2-year follow-up, 2 patients had cramping arm pain and 4 patients noticed a change in arm contour. There were no reoperations. No complications occurred in the study group.

Conclusion:

Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis incorporated into a supraspinatus tendon repair was a safe and reliable option for biceps pathology with a concomitant rotator cuff tear.

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

Background:

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

Purpose:

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

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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

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.

Double on-lay fixation using all suture-type anchor for subpectoral biceps tenodesis has favorable functional outcomes and leads to less cosmetic deformities than single on-lay fixation

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between single on-lay and double on-lay subpectoral biceps tenodesis (SPBT) using all-suture type anchor in patients with concomitant long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) lesions and rotator cuff tears.

METHODS

The study included 130 patients who underwent SPBT using all-suture type anchor and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Single and double anchor on-lay fixations were performed in 69 patients (group A) and 61 patients (group B), respectively. In 16 patients of group A and 36 patients of group B, a metallic wire was embedded at tenodesis site and difference of wire location pre-and postoperatively was measured using simple radiography.

RESULTS

In both groups, the mean visual analogue scale (VAS) score during motion, the mean UCLA and constant scores significantly improved at the last follow-up (all p < 0.001). These scores were not significantly different between two groups. However, postoperatively, a significant difference was observed in the incidence of cosmetic deformity between two groups (p = 0.019). The cosmetic deformity was noted in 9 (13.0%) patients (Popeye deformity 7.2% and biceps softening 5.8%) in group A and 1 (1.6%) patient (Popeye deformity) in group B. In the subgroup analysis on biceps migration after the surgery, the mean migration distance of metal wire was 2.5 ± 3.0 mm in group A and 1.9 ± 2.6 mm in group B (n.s.). No patient had migration of > 10 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

SPBT using all-suture type anchor was a favorable treatment option for lesions of the LHBT with rotator cuff tear. The clinical relevance of this study is the finding that double on-lay fixation with all-suture type anchor would result less cosmetic deformity than the single on-lay fixation for those who need subpectoral biceps tenodesis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Arthroscopic extra-articular suprapectoral biceps tenodesis with knotless suture anchor

Tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon is a frequently performed procedure during shoulder arthroscopy. Various open and arthroscopic techniques have been described with comparable outcomes and complication rates. We describe a simple, knotless, arthroscopic extra-articular biceps tenodesis technique using a 4.5-mm knotless anchor. This technique avoids the complications associated with open tenodesis surgery while still removing the diseased biceps tendon from the bicipital groove. The benefits from knotless suture anchor include no requirement of arthroscopic knot tying and no risk of the knot irritation under the coracoid and coracoacromial ligament.

Technique for Type IV SLAP Lesion Repair

Type IV SLAP tears involve bucket-handle tears of the superior labrum with the tears extending into the biceps tendon. Surgical treatment options involve either primary repair or biceps tenodesis. Recent literature has shown good clinical outcomes after subpectoral biceps tenodesis for the treatment of type II and IV SLAP lesions. The purpose of this article is to present our technique for arthroscopic superior labrum repair with suture anchors and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis with an interference screw.

Outcomes following long head of biceps tendon tenodesis

Lesions of the proximal long head of the biceps tendon (LHB) have been considered as a major cause of shoulder pain and dysfunction. The role of the LHB in causing pain has been a source of controversy for many years, and extensive literature is available discussing anatomy, function, pathology, and most importantly appropriate treatment. Despite this, there is a lack of consensus in the literature regarding the management of biceps-related pathology. Biceps tenotomy and tenodesis are common surgical treatment options when dealing with LHB-related pathology. In this review, a brief discussion on surgical options is provided while focusing on the different options for biceps tenodesis including outcomes and complications.

Systematic Review of Biceps Tenodesis: Arthroscopic Versus Open

PURPOSE

We present a systematic review of the recent literature regarding the use of arthroscopic and open methods of tenodesis for lesions of the long head of the biceps brachii and present an analysis of the subjective and objective outcomes after these 2 procedures.

METHODS

PubMed was carefully reviewed for suitable articles relating to biceps tenodesis, both open and arthroscopic. We included studies reporting on the clinical outcomes of these 2 procedures that were of Level I to IV evidence and were published in the English language. The primary clinical outcomes for each study were determined, normalized, and reported as the percentage of good or excellent results versus poor results based on the outcome scores and criteria laid out by the authors in each of the studies. The exclusion criteria included studies in which biceps tenodesis was performed in patients with concomitant rotator cuff repairs, nonhuman studies, and biomechanical studies.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies met our inclusion criteria. Among all studies, a total of 205 arthroscopic tenodesis procedures and a total of 271 open tenodesis procedures were performed. Among the 271 open tenodesis patients, 98% had a good or excellent outcome, with a poor outcome in 5 patients (2%). Among the 205 patients who underwent arthroscopic tenodesis, 98% had a good or excellent outcome, with a poor outcome in 5 patients (2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Both open and arthroscopic biceps tenodesis provided satisfactory outcomes in most patients, and there were no identifiable differences in this review.

Open Subpectoral Tenodesis of the Proximal Biceps

This article summarizes both the various techniques for an open subpectoral biceps tenodesis as well as the biomechanics associated with these procedures. It provides information regarding the indications and contraindications to support the surgeon's decision. Furthermore, a postoperative protocol as well as an outcome overview is presented to address postoperative care. A short summary of the recent literature regarding potential complications is included to provide further insight on this technique. The open subpectoral tenodesis of the long head of the biceps is a safe and reproducible technique with a low complication rate for patients with pathologies of the proximal biceps.