Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis using suture anchors through the subclavian portal

Rehabilitation With Eccentric Training Using Kettlebell and Kinesio Taping in a Young Volleyball Player With Proximal Biceps Tendinopathy: A Case Report

A prevalent overuse injury among athletes, especially to those participating in sports like volleyball that demand repeated overhead motions, is biceps tendinopathy. The painful condition known as biceps brachii tendinopathy is characterized by changes in the structure of the tendon together with chronic degeneration. Furthermore, the biceps aid in the acceleration and deceleration of the arm in numerous overhead sports. The biceps may experience excessive strain as a result of poor training or exhaustion. It is commonly known that the long head of the biceps tendon plays a significant role in producing pain, particularly when it comes to anterior shoulder discomfort and dysfunction in athletes and working people. Athletes' biceps tendon conditions fall into three broad categories: degeneration, instability, and abnormalities that are of source. This case details the use of kettlebell eccentric exercise and kinesio taping in the rehabilitation of a young volleyball player with biceps tendinopathy. The four primary aspects of the rehabilitation regimen were kinesio taping, pain management and rest, eccentric training with kettlebells, and initial assessment and patient education. Kettlebell eccentric training was used to enhance eccentric strength and encourage tendon remodeling, and kinesio taping was used to give pain relief and structural stability. This case study emphasizes the value of an all-encompassing rehabilitation strategy catered to the unique requirements of every athlete by demonstrating the effectiveness of kinesio taping and eccentric exercise with kettlebells in the treatment of biceps tendinopathy.

Modified arthroscopic intra-articular transtendinous looped biceps tenodesis leads to satisfactory functional outcomes and less frequent Popeye deformity compared to biceps tenotomy

PURPOSE

The present study aimed to propose a modified intra-articular transtendinous looped biceps tenodesis (mTLBT) using a suture anchor and to compare the functional outcomes and incidence of Popeye deformities between biceps tenotomy and mTLBT.

METHODS

Medical records of patients who underwent either tenotomy or mTLBT for the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) lesion between January 2016 and April 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. The inclusion criteria were patients aged 40-70 years with LHBT pathologies, such as superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) lesions > type II, LHBT pulley system rupture with bicipital instability, and intra-articular LHBT tear. The exclusion criteria were full-thickness supraspinatus tears, frozen shoulder, shoulder fracture, and postoperative traumatic events that affected the operated shoulder. All patients were followed up for at least 1 year. Popeye deformity, bicipital cramping pain, visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, and functional outcome scores (University of California at Los Angeles [UCLA] and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES] scores) were recorded. Fisher's exact test and Chi-square test were used for categorical variables, whereas the Mann-Whitney U test was used for nonparametric variables.

RESULTS

The mTLBT and tenotomy groups included 15 and 40 patients, respectively. The incidence of Popeye deformity and biceps cramping pain in the tenotomy group (52.5% and 50%, respectively) was significantly higher than that in the mTLBT group (13.3% and 20%, respectively) (p = 0.009 and p = 0.045, respectively). The postoperative VAS, UCLA, and ASES scores were not significantly different between the two groups. One patient in the tenodesis group experienced metallic-anchor pullout.

CONCLUSION

mTLBT is an arthroscopic intra-articular top of the groove tenodesis that can be performed completely in the intra-articular space and is especially suitable for patients with an intact or partially torn rotator cuff. This technique is reliable for treating biceps pathologies as it results in similar functional outcome scores, lesser biceps cramping pain, and less frequent Popeye deformity compared to biceps tenotomy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

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.

Clinical Outcomes of Revision Biceps Tenodesis for Failed Long Head of Biceps Surgery: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

We summarize the indications, assess the modes of failure, and analyze the clinical and functional outcomes of revision biceps tenodesis after failed primary surgical treatment of long head of biceps (LHB) pathology.

METHODS

A computerized search of PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases and manual screening of selected article reference lists was performed in September 2020. Randomized controlled trial, cohort, case-control, and case series studies reporting clinical outcomes of revision biceps tenodesis following failed LHB surgery were eligible. Patient demographics, indications for revision, intraoperative findings, surgical techniques, and patient-reported outcomes were recorded. Functional assessment and pain scores were assessed and summarized as forest plots with means and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Five of 465 identified studies met inclusion criteria, encompassing 70 revision biceps tenodesis procedures with mean follow-up of 2.4-6.4 years. The failed index procedure was biceps tenodesis in 62 patients and tenotomy in 8 patients. The most common indications for revision were pain or cramping and rerupture, cited by 4 and 3 articles, respectively. After failed conservative treatment, open subpectoral revision tenodesis was performed with concomitant arthroscopic debridement in 65 of 70 cases. Common intraoperative findings at time of revision were adhesions or scarring (39.0-83.0%), fixation failure (8.7-75.0%), and biceps rupture (17.4-80.0%). Revision tenodesis patients reported good to excellent functional outcomes with improvements in Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder, and visual analog scale pain scores, and satisfaction ranged from 88.0 to 100%. All studies demonstrated moderate quality of evidence and risk of bias when critically appraised.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review of 5 moderate risk of bias studies demonstrated that the most common reasons for revision biceps tenodesis were pain or cramping and rerupture. Open subpectoral revision tenodesis with concomitant arthroscopic debridement provided improvements in functional scores with high patient satisfaction at mid-term follow up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, Systematic Review of level III and IV investigations.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Biceps Tenodesis Fixation Strengths: Fixation Type and Location Are Biomechanically Equivalent

PURPOSE

The purpose of this meta-analysis and systematic review was to critically evaluate the biomechanical outcomes of different fixation constructs for a variety of biceps tenodesis techniques in cadaveric models based on both type of fixation and location.

METHODS

A PROSPERO-registered systematic review (CCRD42018109243) of the current literature was conducted with the terms "long head of biceps" AND "tenodesis" AND "biomechanics" and numerous variations thereof in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases, yielding 1,460 abstracts. After screening by eligibility criteria, 18 full-text articles were included. The individual biomechanical factors evaluated included ultimate load to failure (in newtons), stiffness (in newtons per millimeter), and cyclic displacement (in millimeters). After reviewing the included literature, we performed a quality analysis of the studies (Quality Appraisal for Cadaveric Studies scale score) and a meta-analysis comparing raw mean differences in data between the suprapectoral and subpectoral fixation location groups, as well as between the fixation construct groups.

RESULTS

Among the 18 included studies, 347 cadaveric specimens were evaluated for ultimate load to failure, stiffness, and cyclic displacement when comparing both location (suprapectoral vs subpectoral) and tenodesis fixation type (interference screw vs cortical button, suture anchor, or all-soft-tissue techniques). Interference screw fixation showed significantly greater mean stiffness by 8.0 N/mm (P = .013) compared with the other grouped techniques but did not show significant differences when evaluated for ultimate load to failure and cyclic displacement (P = .28 and P = .18, respectively). Additionally, no difference in construct strength was seen when comparing the fixation strength of suprapectoral versus subpectoral techniques for stiffness, ultimate load to failure, and cyclic loading (P = .47, P = .053, and P = .13, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, no significant biomechanical differences were found when the results were stratified by specific surgical technique (interference screw vs other tenodesis techniques) and location (suprapectoral vs subpectoral biceps tenodesis).

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

As a result of this study, when biomechanically evaluating specific tenodesis constructs, the individual clinician has the liberty of choosing the fixation technique based on his or her preference and knowledge of shortcomings of each type of fixation construct.

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

Driving after Upper or Lower Extremity Orthopaedic Surgery

Orthopaedic procedures can affect patients' ability to perform activities of daily living, such as driving automobiles or other vehicles that require coordinated use of the upper and lower extremities. Many variables affect the time needed before a patient can drive competently after undergoing orthopaedic surgery to the extremities. These variables include whether the patient underwent upper or lower extremity surgery, the country in which the patient resides, whether the right or left lower extremity is involved, whether the dominant arm is involved, whether the extremity is in a cast or brace, whether the patient has adequate strength to control the steering wheel, and whether the patient is taking pain medication. The type and complexity of the procedure also influence the speed of return of driving ability. Few studies provide definitive data on driving ability after upper or lower extremity surgery. Patients should be counseled not to drive until they can control the steering wheel and the pedals competently and can drive well enough to prevent further harm to themselves or to others. This review discusses the limited recommendations in the literature regarding driving motorized vehicles after upper or lower extremity orthopaedic surgery.

Biomechanical Evaluation of a Transtendinous All-Suture Anchor Technique Versus Interference Screw Technique for Suprapectoral Biceps Tenodesis in a Cadaveric Model

PURPOSE

To compare the biomechanical properties of an transtendinous all-suture anchor technique with the commonly-accepted interference screw technique in a cadaveric model.

METHODS

Sixteen fresh-frozen human cadaveric shoulders (mean age, 67.6 ± 5.8 years) were used and were randomly divided into 2 experimental long head of the biceps brachii (LHB) tenodesis groups (n = 8), namely transtendinous all-suture anchor technique and interference screw technique. The location of tenodesis was in the bicipital groove, 1 cm distal to the proximal border of the bicipital groove. Tensile force parallel to the longitudinal axis of the humerus was applied to each specimen. A preload of 5 N was applied for 2 minutes, followed by cyclic loading for 500 cycles from 5 to 70 N at 1 Hz; then, a load-to-failure test at 1 mm/s was performed. The ultimate failure load, stiffness, cyclic displacement, failure displacement, and failure modes were recorded.

RESULTS

The transtendinous all-suture anchor technique provided similar ultimate failure load and stiffness as the interference screw technique. However, the cyclic and failure displacements of the transtendinous all-suture anchor technique were significantly greater than the interference screw technique (P = .009 and .021, respectively). Six specimens in the transtendinous all-suture anchor group failed because of suture anchor pullout, while failure of the other 2 was caused by tendon tear; by contrast, all specimens in the interference screw group failed because of tendon tear.

CONCLUSIONS

The transtendinous all-suture anchor technique for LHB tenodesis offered equivalent ultimate failure load and stiffness but had significantly larger cyclic and failure displacement values when compared with the interference screw technique in this cadaveric biomechanical study.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The transtendinous all-suture anchor technique is an alternative technique for suprapectoral LHB tenodesis; however, care should be taken because only time zero biomechanical data are available.

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.

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.

The biomechanical performance of a new forked knotless biceps tenodesis compared to a knotless and suture anchor tenodesis

PURPOSE

Biomechanical comparison of three different fixation techniques for a proximal biceps tenodesis.

METHODS

Eighteen human cadaver specimens were used for the testing. A tenodesis of the proximal biceps tendon was performed using a double-loaded suture anchor (5.5-mm Corkscrew, Arthrex), a knotless anchor (5.5-mm SwiveLock, Arthrex) or a forked knotless anchor (8-mm SwiveLock, Arthrex). Reconstructions were cyclically loaded for 50 cycles from 10-60 to 10-100 N. Cyclic displacement and ultimate failure loads were determined, and mode of failure was evaluated.

RESULTS

Cyclic displacement at 60 N revealed a mean of 3.3 ± 1.1 mm for the Corkscrew, 5.4 ± 1.4 mm for the 5.5-mm SwiveLock and 2.9 ± 1.6 mm for the 8-mm forked SwiveLock. At 100 N, 5.1 ± 2.2 mm were seen for the Corkscrew anchor, 8.7 ± 2.5 mm for the 5.5-mm SwiveLock and 4.8 ± 3.3 mm for the 8-mm forked SwiveLock anchor. Significant lower cyclic displacement was seen for the Corkscrew anchor (p < 0.020) as well as the 8-mm SwiveLock anchor (p < 0.023) compared to the 5.5-mm SwiveLock anchor at 60 N. An ultimate load to failure of 109 ± 27 N was found for the Corkscrew anchor, 125 ± 25 N were measured for the 5.5-mm SwiveLock anchor, and 175 ± 42 N were found for the 8-mm forked SwiveLock anchor. Significant differences were seen between the 8-mm SwiveLock compared to the 5.5-mm SwiveLock (p < 0.044) as well as the Corkscrew anchor (p < 0.009). No significant differences were seen between the Corkscrew and the 5.5-mm SwiveLock anchor.

CONCLUSIONS

The new 8-mm forked SwiveLock anchor significantly enhances construct stability compared to a 5.5-mm double-loaded Corkscrew anchor as well as the 5.5-mm SwiveLock suture anchor. However, a restrictive postoperative rehabilitation seems to be important in all tested reconstructions in order to avoid early failure of the construct.

Transfer of the long head of biceps to the conjoint tendon. A biomechanical study

BACKGROUND

Tenodesis of the long head of biceps has been intensively investigated and various surgical options exist. The aim of this biomechanical study was to compare the maximum strength of two different techniques for biceps tenodesis. Our hypothesis was that the two procedures have the same biomechanical properties.

METHODS

We performed the two different tenodesis techniques using 12 fresh frozen shoulders divided into two groups of six. In the first group, the biceps was transferred to the conjoint tendon. In the second group, an intraossous suprapectoral tenodesis was performed. After a preload of 10 N, cyclical loading with a maximum of 60 N and 100 N with 100 cycles and 0.5 Hz was applied to the tendons for both groups. An axial ultimate loading to failure was conducted subsequently.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found in age, bone mineral density, or weight between the two groups. During the cyclical loading with 60 N, one slippage of the tendon was observed in the suprapectoral group. The mean ultimate load to failure was 294.15N in the transposition group and 186.76 N in the suprapectoral group, but this difference was not significant (P=0.18).

INTERPRETATION

The biomechanical results demonstrated equal biomechanical properties postoperatively for both transposition of the tendon and the current standard suprapectoral tenodesis procedure. The transposition can be performed as a primary or a salvage procedure in order to potentially reduce the proportion of patients with persistent postoperative bicipital groove pain and is comparable in strength to a standard tenodesis.

Long head biceps tenodesis with a knotless cinch suture anchor: a biomechanical analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the initial fixation strength of 3 techniques of arthroscopic tenodesis of the long head of the biceps (LHB).

METHODS

Eighteen human cadaveric shoulders were randomly assigned to one of 3 simulated arthroscopic biceps tenodesis techniques-simple suture (SS), Krakow stitch (KS), or lasso loop (LL)-combined with a knotless fixation implant (3.5-mm Piton Anchor; Tornier, Minneapolis, MN). Biomechanical parameters were evaluated by cyclic loading and load to failure.

RESULTS

The mean failure load (P = .007) was 158.3 ± 32.2 N, 109.8 ± 41.1 N, and 46.6 ± 3.8 N for the KS, SS, and LL techniques, respectively. Mean stiffness was greater (statistically significant) in the KS (21.4 ± 3.0 N/mm) and SS (20.7 ± 7.9 N/mm) treatment groups compared with the LL group (4.5 ± 1.5 N/mm) (P = .011).

CONCLUSIONS

Biceps tenodesis performed with a more secure tendon suturing technique, such as the Krakow technique, provides superior ultimate and fatigue strength and thus may be more secure in clinical application and yield better clinical results. The mechanical properties of the LL technique were especially poor in comparison.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Although more complex suturing techniques for arthroscopic biceps tenodesis can be technically challenging, more secure tendon fixation may improve clinical outcomes.

Arthroscopic suprapectoral and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis: a comparison of restoration of length-tension and mechanical strength between techniques

PURPOSE

This study aimed to (1) evaluate the ex vivo restoration of the long head biceps length-tension for both arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (ASPBT) and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis (OSPBT) techniques and (2) assess how location in the proximal humerus affects pullout strength for tenodesis using an interference screw implant.

METHODS

Eighteen matched cadaveric shoulders were randomized to OSPBT or ASPBT groups (9 each). Tenodesis was performed using clinical techniques. Preoperatively, a metallic bead was placed in the biceps tendon and a fluoroscopic image was obtained. Postoperatively, an image was obtained to evaluate the location of the tenodesis and the metallic bead and determine tensioning. Biomechanical load-to-failure testing was then performed.

RESULTS

The ASPBT technique resulted in an average of 2.15 ± 0.62 cm of biceps overtensioning compared with 0.78 ± 0.35 cm (P < .001) in the OSPBT group. The average load to failure in the ASPBT group was 138.8 ± 29.1 N compared with 197 ± 38.6 N (P = .002) in the OSPBT group. Failure caused by implant pullout was significantly more frequent in the ASPBT group (7 of 9) than in the OSPBT group (1 of 9).

CONCLUSIONS

The described ASPBT technique using an interference screw implant has the tendency to overtension the biceps and has a significantly decreased ultimate load to failure compared with an open subpectoral technique in matched cadaveric specimens.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study shows differences in the biomechanical properties of OSPBT and ASPBT. Modification of currently published ASPBT techniques may be necessary to improve restoration of the physiological length-tension relationship of the biceps. Clinical studies may need to clarify if the lower ultimate load to failure for the ASPBT technique is clinically significant.

Trends in long head biceps tenodesis

BACKGROUND

Tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon has become a popular surgical treatment option for patients with pain or instability attributed to a diseased or unstable biceps tendon. No previous studies have characterized the practice patterns of surgeons performing biceps tenodesis in the United States.

PURPOSE

To investigate current trends in both arthroscopic and open biceps tenodesis across time, sex, age, and region of the United States as well as associated charges.

STUDY DESIGN

Descriptive epidemiology study.

METHODS

Patients who underwent biceps tenodesis (Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] codes 23430 and 29828) for the years 2008 through 2011 were identified using the PearlDiver Patient Record Database, including both private-payer and Medicare data. These cohorts were then assessed for associated diagnoses using International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, codes and concomitant procedures using CPT codes. These searches yielded procedural volumes, sex and age distribution, regional volumes, and average per-patient charges. A χ(2) linear-by-linear association analysis, Student t test, and linear regression were used for comparisons, with P < .05 considered significant.

RESULTS

A total of 44,932 biceps tenodesis procedures were identified from 2008-2011. The incidence of biceps tenodesis procedures per 100,000 database patients increased 1.7-fold over the study period, from 8178 in 2008 to 14,014 in 2011 (P < .0001). An increase in the overall percentage volume was noted in patients aged 60-69 years (P = .039) and 20-29 years (P = .016). The overall charges for arthroscopic tenodesis increased at a rate significantly greater than that of open tenodesis (P < .0001). Rotator cuff tear or sprain, bicipital tenosynovitis, biceps tendon rupture, superior labral lesion, and osteoarthritis were the most common diagnoses associated with biceps tenodesis procedures. A significant increase in isolated biceps tenodesis was also observed over the study period, from 1967 patients in 2008 to 3565 patients in 2011, representing a 1.8-fold increase.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of biceps tenodesis has increased yearly from 2008-2011. Arthroscopic tenodesis has emerged as a more popular technique. Charges associated with the procedure have increased significantly. Significant regional variations in procedural incidences exist.

The keyhole technique for arthroscopic tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon. In vivo prospective study with a radio-opaque marker

INTRODUCTION

In some clinical situations such as when the Long Head of the Biceps (LHB) is unstable or with an "hourglass biceps", treatment is required. Tenodesis is an alternative to tenotomy to prevent the Popeye sign. Although sutures, anchors or interference screws may be used, they all have complications and drawbacks. Moreover, the number of failures is underestimated because it only considers the visible deformities of the arm. MRI provides more accurate assessment, but is more expensive. We hypothesized that Froimson's "keyhole technique" which has been described in open surgery could be performed arthroscopically with similar clinical outcomes to conventional techniques and without the complications or drawbacks. We also propose an objective and less expensive assessment of treatment failure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This 12-month prospective study was performed by a single surgeon. All patients requiring LHB tenodesis underwent arthroscopic "keyhole technique" surgery performed at the upper edge of the Pectoralis major in the bicipital groove. The LHB was externalised, pulled back on itself and the intra-articular portion was resected. A metal marker was placed in the tendon. The latter was introduced into the keyhole and hangs spontaneously. The follow-up evaluation was performed during the third month with a clinical examination and a plain X-ray. Distal migration of the metal marker was the sign of the failure of tenodesis.

RESULTS

Between January 1st and December 31st, 2013, 123 patients were included. There were 87 men (70.7%) and 36 women (29.3%) and mean age was 52.2 (27-71). Eighty-eight patients underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Twenty-three patients (18.5%) had tenodesis failure shown by distal migration of the metal marker on plain X-rays. There were 21 men and 2 women. Only 13 had a visible Popeye sign and 1 was severe. None of the patients felt any discomfort, fatigue or painful cramping. There was no difference in flexion and supination strength from the healthy side. No complications were noted.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

We confirm the hypothesis that this arthroscopic technique is feasible and reproducible with clinical outcomes similar to conventional techniques but without the complications. The metal marker implanted in the LHB confirms the exact number of failures, which is a significant element in this study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Midterm clinical outcomes for arthroscopic subdeltoid transfer of the long head of the biceps tendon to the conjoint tendon

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess the midterm functional outcomes for arthroscopic subdeltoid transfer of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) to the conjoint tendon.

METHODS

Fifty-six shoulders in 54 patients (46 men, 8 women; mean age, 42 years) who underwent isolated arthroscopic subdeltoid LHBT transfer to the conjoint tendon by a single surgeon with a minimum of 4 years follow-up were evaluated with American Society of Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and L'Insalata scores. A subset of patients was available for physical examination.

RESULTS

At an average of 6.4 years postoperatively, ASES and L'Insalata scores were 86 and 85, respectively, corresponding to 88% of patients rated good to excellent. Twelve shoulders (10 from men patients, 2 from women patients; mean age 41 years; average follow-up, 6.3 years) underwent physical examination. Mean University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) score was 31, and there were no significant differences in side-to-side elbow flexion strength or endurance using a 10-pound weight. One patient had a Popeye sign. There were no major complications reported in this cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic transfer of the LHBT to the conjoint tendon is a safe and durable intervention for chronic refractory biceps tendinitis. LEVEL OF 

EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Arthroscopic suprapectoral and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis: a comparison of minimum 2-year clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

While a vast body of literature exists describing biceps tenodesis techniques and evaluating the biomechanical aspects of tenodesis locations or various implants, little literature presents useful clinical outcomes to guide surgeons in their decision to perform a particular method of tenodesis.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

To compare the clinical outcomes of open subpectoral biceps tenodesis (OSPBT) and arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (ASPBT). Our null hypothesis was that both methods would yield satisfactory results with regard to shoulder and biceps function, postoperative shoulder scores, pain relief, and complications.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Patients who underwent either ASPBT or OSPBT for isolated superior labrum or long head of the biceps lesions with a minimum follow-up of 2 years were evaluated with several validated clinical outcome measures and physical examinations including range of motion and strength.

RESULTS

Between 2007 and 2011, a total of 82 patients met all inclusion and exclusion criteria, which included 32 patients with ASPBT and 50 patients with OSPBT; 27 of 32 (84.4%) patients with ASPBT and 35 of 50 (70.0%) patients with OSPBT completed clinical follow-up. Overall outcomes for both procedures were satisfactory. No significant differences were noted in postoperative Constant-Murley (ASPBT: 90.7; OSPBT: 91.8; P = .755), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASPBT: 90.1; OSPBT: 88.4; P = .735), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (ASPBT: 87.4; OSPBT: 86.8; P = .901), Simple Shoulder Test (ASPBT: 10.4; OSPBT: 10.6; P = .762), long head of the biceps (ASPBT: 91.6; OSPBT: 93.6; P = .481), or Veterans RAND 36-Item Health Survey (ASPBT: 81.0; OSPBT: 80.1; P = .789) scores. No significant range of motion or strength differences was noted between the procedures.

CONCLUSION

Both ASPBT and OSPBT yield excellent clinical and functional results for the management of isolated superior labrum or long head of the biceps lesions. No significant differences in clinical outcomes as determined by several validated outcome measures were found between the 2 tenodesis methods, nor were any significant range of motion or strength deficits noted at a minimum 2 years postoperatively.

Increased incidence of postoperative stiffness after arthroscopic compared with open biceps tenodesis

PURPOSE

To determine the incidence of postoperative stiffness after open and arthroscopic biceps tenodesis, compare the incidence between each method, and determine relevant risk factors for its occurrence.

METHODS

A consecutive series of patients who underwent biceps tenodesis during a 3-year period were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

We evaluated 249 patients, which included 143 who underwent open subpectoral tenodesis and 106 who underwent arthroscopic suprapectoral tenodesis. The mean overall follow-up period for the arthroscopic group was 9.9 months (range, 5.1 to 33.5 months). The mean overall follow-up period for the open group was 9.5 months (range, 4.7 to 49.2 months). There was no significant difference in overall follow-up duration between groups (P = .627). A significantly increased incidence of postoperative stiffness was found in the arthroscopic group compared with the open group (17.9% v 5.6%, P = .002). Within the arthroscopic group, patients with postoperative stiffness were more frequently female patients than those without stiffness (63.2% v 33.3%, P = .016) and were more likely to be smokers than those without stiffness (36.8% v 16.1%, P = .040). The tenodesis site was located significantly more proximal in the arthroscopic group of patients with postoperative stiffness compared with patients without postoperative stiffness (32.44 ± 7.8 mm from the top of the humeral head v 50.34 ± 7.8 mm, P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show a notably increased incidence of postoperative stiffness after arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis compared with open subpectoral biceps tenodesis. This appears to occur more commonly in female patients and smokers and may have a relation to the position of the tenodesis, with a more superiorly placed tenodesis site being a potential influencing factor. On the basis of this series, this complication most commonly will improve over time and with symptom-based management.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic case-control study.

Clinical and radiologic results of arthroscopic biceps tenodesis with suture anchor in the setting of rotator cuff tear

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to report clinical and radiologic results of arthroscopic biceps tenodesis with 1 suture anchor in rotator cuff tear patients.

METHODS

During a 2-year period, 84 consecutive patients (45 men; 39 women) who underwent arthroscopic tenodesis were evaluated retrospectively. Mean age was 58 years. The primary indication for surgery was rotator cuff tear in 96.4%. Tenodesis was performed with 1 suture anchor placed in the bicipital groove with 2 knots, 1 lasso-type and 1 that pierced the tendon. At final follow-up at a mean of 33.2 months, visual analog scale pain (pain-VAS) score, shoulder scores (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES] and Constant score), Popeye deformity (PD), anterior arm pain, and elbow flexion power were evaluated. Postoperative magnetic resonance images were evaluated in 60 patients to determine the integrity of the tenodesis and the location of the suture anchor.

RESULTS

The average pain-VAS decreased from 5.3 to 1.4 (P < .001). ASES and Constant scores significantly increased, from 42.9 and 56.2 to 85.2 and 82.5, respectively. PD occurred in 11 patients (12.9%), and 2 (2.3%) had self-consciousness; however, no patients complained about the deformity and the PD did not correlate with poorer clinical scores. Six patients (7.1%) complained of anterior cramping pain. Elbow flexion power was similar compared with the contralateral side. In postoperative magnetic resonance imagine analysis, 15 patients (25%) showed distal migration of tenodesed biceps tendon, although only 6 (7.1%) had clinical PD. Postoperative clinical outcomes were not influenced by the location of the suture anchor within the bicipital groove.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis with 1 suture anchor resulted in good clinical outcomes at 2 years postoperatively. PD was seen in 12.9% of the patients.

Unusual Complete Proximal Biceps Tendon Rupture

Proximal biceps brachii tendon rupture is an unusual presentation in young individuals. This report is an extremely rare case of a complete rupture of the proximal biceps brachii tendon in a young patient as a result of a high-energy water-skiing injury. It was associated with displacement of the biceps muscle into the forearm with skin necrosis. The patient was treated successfully by débridement of the skin and complete resection of the biceps brachii muscle.

Biomechanical strain characteristics of soft tissue biceps tenodesis and bony tenodesis

BACKGROUND

Biomechanical analysis of biceps tenodesis procedures has historically focused on load to failure models. Minimal data exists for the analysis of biomechanical strain properties of the biceps tendon in a sub-failure, physiologic cadaver model.

HYPOTHESIS

Tendon strain characteristics are different between bony and soft tissue tenodesis surgery, and the soft tissue tenodesis procedure reproduces a strain pattern more similar to the native biceps tendon.

METHODS

Eight fresh frozen cadaver upper extremities were mounted onto a custom device that controls shoulder abduction and rotation. Strain on the tendon was measured using a differential variable reluctance transducer as the arm was moved through cycles of abduction and external rotation. Each arm was mounted once, and all 3 testing procedures were performed on each of the 8 specimens. Statistical analysis was completed using ANOVA, followed by multiple comparisons with Bonferroni correction.

RESULTS

The bony tenodesis model placed higher strain on the biceps tendon than the soft tissue tenodesis (p = 0.025). Also, the bony tenodesis model increased the strain on the biceps tendon when compared to the native tendon (p = 0.031). In contrast, the soft tissue tenodesis did not significantly alter strain when compared to the native tendon (p = 0.089).

CONCLUSION

The soft tissue tenodesis procedure better maintained the native strain environment when compared to the bony tenodesis using an interference screw. Due to this closer approximation of native biceps tendon biomechanics, the soft tissue procedure may be more preferable clinically than the bony tenodesis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1, Controlled Laboratory Study.

Symptomatic chronic long head of biceps rupture: Surgical results

Purpose:

Chronic rupture of the long head of biceps (LHB) tendon is usually asymptomatic. However, some active patients suffer with long-term cramping pain associated with repetitive biceps use. The aim of this study is to review the outcomes of biceps tenodesis performed for chronic LHB ruptures.

Materials and Methods:

We performed a retrospective review of 11 consecutive patients who underwent biceps tenodesis for symptomatic chronic LHB ruptures over a 4-year period.

Results:

There were 10 men and one woman with an average age at surgery of 41 years (range 23-65). The mean follow-up was 29 months (range 6-60). In five cases a tendon was still identifiable and suitable for repair with an ‘in-bone’ interference screw. However, in six cases the tendon was not possible to tenodese with an interference screw. In these cases we used an ‘on-bone’ technique with suture anchors. All, except one, patients reported improvement in their arm pain (78%), strength (74%) and appearance. All, except one, were glad to have had the surgery.

Conclusions:

Symptomatic chronic LHB ruptures improve with a biceps tenodesis procedure. Due to the chronicity of the injury and possible degeneration of the tendon, a suitable tendon for ‘in-bone’ tenodesis may not be possible. In these cases an ‘on-bone’ footprint repair with suture anchors achieves good results.

Level of Evidence:

IV (retrospective case series).

Clinical outcomes of revision biceps tenodesis

Purpose:

Biceps tenotomy and tenodesis are effective treatment options for biceps pathology, but outcomes of revision surgery are not known. This study examines the clinical outcomes of patients who have undergone a revision biceps tenodesis.

Materials and Methods:

A retrospective review of all patients since 2004 (N = 21) who had undergone a revision biceps tenodesis with greater than 6-month follow-up was completed. A follow-up survey was carried out, and the visual analog scale (VAS), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and University of California – Los Angeles (UCLA) scores were obtained, along with SF-12 Mental (MCS-12) and Physical Component Summaries (PCS-12).

Results:

Indications for revision surgery were continued pain (14) and ruptured biceps (7). Complete follow-up examinations were performed in 15 of 21 patients (71.4%). Average follow-up was 33.4 ± 23.5 months. The mean postoperative scores were 1.9 out of 10, VAS; 79 out of 100, SANE; 10.2 out of 12, SST; 83 out of 100, ASES; 29 out of 35, UCLA; 44, PCS- 12; and 47.1, MCS- 12. Five patients were considered failures with a UCLA score below 27. Seventeen of twenty-one patient underwent concomitant procedures. Complete preoperative and postoperative data were collected for 14 patients. All scores demonstrated highly significant improvement from preoperative levels (P < 0.005), except for the MCS-12. There was no statistically significant difference in the outcomes of revision due to rupture and revision due to persistent pain.

Conclusions:

The results suggest that revision subpectoral biceps tenodesis provides significant pain relief and improvement in functional outcomes at a mean follow-up of 33.4 months.

Level of Evidence:

Case Series, Level 4.

Arthroscopic suprapectoral tenodesis of the long head biceps: reproducing an anatomic length-tension relationship

Tenodesis is an accepted treatment option in the management of pathology involving the long head of the biceps (LHB). Among the common causes for revision surgery after tenodesis are residual pain within the bicipital groove, cramping, early biceps fatigue, and biceps deformity. Most technical descriptions of arthroscopic biceps tenodesis involve fixation of the LHB tendon within or proximal to the intertubercular sulcus and thus fail to address the described sources of pain within this proximal anatomic location. Suprapectoral tenodesis offers the surgeon the ability to remove the LHB from within the bicipital groove by fixating the biceps more distally. Cramping, early fatigue, and biceps deformity have been described when the appropriate length-tension relation of the biceps tendon has not been restored after LHB tenodesis. Our described procedure allows for a more consistent restoration of the anatomic length-tension relation of the LHB, therefore reducing the symptoms associated with this variable. This all-arthroscopic, suprapectoral biceps tenodesis with interference fixation addresses the most common causes for revision surgery and offers a comprehensive solution for LHB pathology.

The long head of biceps as a source of pain in active population: tenotomy or tenodesis? A comparison of 2 case series with isolated lesions

The tendon of the long head of the biceps (LHB) is a common source of pain in the shoulder, and the surgical treatments proposed are tenotomy or tenodesis performed in different ways. The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical results (objective and subjective) of tenotomy versus soft tissue tenodesis. One-hundred and four patients with an isolated LHB pathology, arthroscopically treated between 2004 and 2007, were observed retrospectively. Forty-eight of these patients were treated with tenotomy and 56 with a soft tissue tenodesis technique. All the patients were evaluated by an independent observer with a minimum follow-up of 2 years which included VAS, DASH questionnaire, Constant score and ROM evaluation with a goniometer. All these evaluations were performed pre- and post-operatively. An independent expert radiologist then performed an ultrasound examination only in the post-operative evaluation of the tenodesis group looking to confirm the effectiveness of the procedure. In both groups, the scores were significantly improved. In the tenotomy group, 16.6 % of the patients had bicipital cramps for a mean post-operative time of 1 month. Constant score improved in both groups: 46.6 to 86.1 in tenotomy group and 48.9-84.9 in tenodesis group; VAS improved from 8.4 to 1.5 in tenotomy group and from 8.8 to 1.4 in tenodesis group; DASH scores changed from 42.5 to 13.6 in tenotomy group and from 55.8 to 11.4 in tenodesis group. Popeye sign was present in 37.5 % in the tenotomy group and in 5.3 % in tenodesis group. In 3 patients of the tenodesis group, ultrasound revealed complete failure of the tenodesis. In conclusion, both procedures are effective in terms of treatment of LHB pathologies. Tenotomy does not require specific post-operative treatment and is easy to perform, but cramp and Popeye sign may occur after surgery. The soft tissue tenodesis technique is an easy and cost-effective way to perform tenodesis with good results, especially in preventing the Popeye sign, but requires a longer rehabilitation time. Level of evidence IV.

[Proximal and distal rupture of the m. biceps brachii]

Ruptures of the biceps tendon account for a high percentage of tendon ruptures. The aetiology of proximal ruptures of the long head of the biceps tendon is often degenerative and they are frequently associated with lesions of the rotator cuff. The clinical findings are often not specific and long lasting. Distal ruptures of the biceps tendon mostly occur during eccentric contraction of the biceps muscle.Clinical tests, the associated haematoma and a distalisation or proximalisation of the muscle belly in combination with ultrasound or MRI to rule out combined diseases lead to the diagnosis. The possible options include conservative and operative treatment. Tenotomy and tenodesis lead to comparable results in the literature. Therefore, conservative treatment is mostly recommended in proximal ruptures. Operative treatment is preferred in distal ruptures of the biceps tendon in order to achieve an anatomical reconstruction of the muscle function. Chronic ruptures of the distal biceps tendon can be successfully treated with free autografts or allografts.

Isokinetic strength, endurance, and subjective outcomes after biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: a postoperative study

BACKGROUND

Similar subjective outcomes have been reported for tenotomy or tenodesis of the long head of the biceps. Few studies have reported on postoperative strength and endurance.

HYPOTHESIS

Biceps tenodesis results in superior subjective outcomes, strength, and endurance compared with tenotomy.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Participants completed isokinetic strength and endurance testing for elbow flexion and supination on the operative and nonoperative sides a minimum of 2 years after biceps tenotomy or tenodesis. Modified American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (MASES) and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) scores were obtained. The operative/nonoperative strength and endurance scores were compared for the tenotomy and tenodesis groups, with the nonoperative shoulder serving as the control for each participant's operative shoulder. Change scores for strength and endurance were reported as percentage increase or decrease as compared with the nonoperative side. Change scores and MASES and SANE scores were compared between the 2 groups. The presence of a "popeye" deformity or pain at the tenodesis site was noted.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients (19 tenotomy, 16 tenodesis) were studied. No significant difference was noted in postoperative MASES and SANE scores. Operative-side peak supination torque was significantly decreased relative to the nonoperative side in the tenotomy group, which had a significantly larger decrease in supination peak torque than did the tenodesis group on comparison of change scores. No significant difference was noted for peak flexion torque or flexion/supination endurance between operative and nonoperative sides in either group or between change scores for peak flexion torque or flexion/supination endurance in the tenotomy and tenodesis groups. Four tenotomy patients had a popeye deformity, 2 of whom reported painful cramping. Two patients had pain at the tenodesis site.

CONCLUSION

Subjective outcomes are similar for patients treated with tenotomy and tenodesis. Tenotomy decreases supination peak torque relative to the nonoperative side and tenodesis.

Management of failed biceps tenodesis or tenotomy: causation and treatment

The purpose of this paper is to review the management of long head biceps tendon pathology, with a particular emphasis on a prior failed biceps tenotomy or tenodesis. Failed biceps tenotomy generally results from a lack of thorough preoperative discussion of potential outcomes rather than from technical problems. Patients with unsatisfactory results can be treated with conversion to a biceps tenodesis. Failed biceps tenodesis is usually recognized with persistent pain in the area of the bicipital groove, often caused by either the mechanical failure of the tenodesis or associated shoulder pathology that is not addressed at the time of the primary surgery. Operative treatment options include revision tenodesis or biceps tenotomy. The subpectoral approach provides excellent versatility and ability to meet technical objectives when performing revision tenodesis, by removing the tendon completely from the groove and preserving biceps function.

Biomechanical evaluation of 2 arthroscopic biceps tenodeses: double-anchor versus percutaneous intra-articular transtendon (PITT) techniques

BACKGROUND

Recently, there is increasing interest in different arthroscopic biceps tenodesis techniques. However, little data have been published about the biomechanical properties of soft tissue tenodesis.

PURPOSE

This study was undertaken to evaluate the biomechanical properties of 2 different arthroscopic biceps tenodeses: the percutaneous intra-articular transtendon (PITT) technique and the suture-anchor technique.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

Fifteen fresh-frozen cadaveric specimens were randomly allocated to the 2 different biceps tenodesis techniques. The humerus with biceps tenodesis was mounted on a materials testing machine to perform a load to failure test. The structural properties including ultimate load (N) and stiffness (N/mm) were derived from the load-displacement curve. The mode of failure was also recorded. Ultimate load and stiffness were compared with the parametric Student t test.

RESULTS

Both repairs showed typical load-displacement curves followed by a constant increase in load and displacement until failure occurred. Suture-anchor and PITT techniques had ultimate loads of 175.4 +/- 40.4 N and 142.7 +/- 30.9 N (P = .10) and stiffness of 15.9 +/- 8.4 N/mm and 13.3 +/- 3 N/mm (P = .36), respectively, with no significant differences between them. All of the surgical constructs failed in the tendon site by pulling out with the sutures through the substance of the tendon.

CONCLUSION

The suture-anchor and PITT techniques exhibited satisfactory initial strength with no statistical difference between the 2 groups. These findings, along with the consistent pullout of the suture through the tendon during failure, suggest that the most important factor for initial strength is not the attachment site but the quality of the biceps tendon.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The quality of the tendon should be taken into account when deciding the surgical technique and the rehabilitation program. The PITT technique has the benefit of avoiding hardware complications and cost.

Tenotomy versus tenodesis in the management of pathologic lesions of the tendon of the long head of the biceps brachii

BACKGROUND

Primary and secondary lesions of the tendon of the long head of the biceps brachii are common, with no clear consensus about their optimal management.

HYPOTHESIS

There is no difference in outcomes of tenotomy and tenodesis for lesions of the tendon of the long head of the biceps brachii.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a comprehensive quantitative review of the published English-language literature comparing the outcomes of tenotony and tenodesis for lesions of the tendon of the long head of the biceps brachii.

METHODS

All relevant articles in peer-reviewed journals were retrieved, and each article was scored using the Coleman Methodology Score, a highly repeatable methodology score, by 2 independent reviewers.

RESULTS

Scores were predominantly low for quality of the studies, with patient number and validated outcome measures being the weakest areas.

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of quality evidence to advocate one technique over the other. We emphasize the need for appropriately powered, well-conducted, randomized, controlled trials comparing the outcomes of these 2 procedures. There is little difference in the outcome of tenotomy compared with tenodesis. Tenotomy is easy and quick, with less need for postoperative rehabilitation. We therefore suggest that biceps tenotomy be the preferred method. Clinical Relevance Biceps pathologic lesions are common. There is no evidence base for their most appropriate management.

Preventing the popeye deformity after release of the long head of the biceps tendon: an alternative technique and biomechanical evaluation

PURPOSE

The purpose of this biomechanical study is to compare the pullout strength of a traditional biceps release with an alternative method of releasing the biceps in which a portion of the superior labrum is included in the release.

METHODS

Five pairs of shoulders were arbitrarily separated into 2 groups: biceps tendons to be released "without labrum" or "with labrum." The biceps tendons of shoulders in the without-labrum group were released at the tendon-labrum junction. In the shoulders in the with-labrum group, the biceps was released with a portion of the superior labrum equal to twice the width of the biceps tendon and half the height of the superior labrum. The force required to pull the biceps tendon through the bicipital groove was then measured with a servohydraulic frame (858 Bionix; MTS Systems, Minneapolis, MN). The mean force required to pull the tendon out of the groove was compared by use of parametric and nonparametric statistical tests.

RESULTS

The mean force required to pull the tendon through the bicipital groove was 25.0 N (95% confidence interval, 8.8 to 41.1) in the without-labrum group and 73.2 N (95% confidence interval, 57.1 to 89.3) in the with-labrum group (P = .001 by paired t test and P = .042 by Wilcoxon signed-rank test).

CONCLUSIONS

Release of the biceps tendon with a portion of the superior labrum significantly increases the force required to pull the biceps tendon through the bicipital tunnel.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The described method of releasing the biceps tendon with some of the superior labrum may prevent complete biceps retraction and may result in fewer Popeye deformities after biceps release.

Tenodesis of the long head of biceps brachii: cyclic testing of five methods of fixation in a porcine model

For pathologies of the long head of the biceps brachii, various surgical treatment options have been described, ranging from tenotomy to different open and arthroscopic techniques for tenodesis. We analyzed the biomechanical properties of 5 widely used operative techniques for tenodesis of the long head of the biceps brachii: an interference screw (7 x 23-mm Arthrex BioTenodesis screw), a suture anchor (5 x 15-mm Arthrex BioCorkscrew), a ligament washer, the keyhole technique, and the bone tunnel technique. Ten porcine humeri for each technique were used to evaluate the ultimate failure load and cyclic displacement. Tenodesis with the interference screw showed a significantly greater ultimate failure load compared with every other technique (480.9 +/- 116.5 N, P < .005) and the least displacement after 200 cycles, significantly less in comparison to the keyhole and bone tunnel techniques (4.28 +/- 1.44 mm, P < .05). Interference screw fixation has superior biomechanical properties with respect to cyclic displacement and primary fixation strength.

Direct arthroscopy of the bicipital groove: a new approach to evaluation and treatment of bicipital groove and biceps tendon pathology

Assessment of the intra-articular and intertubercular regions of the long tendon of the biceps forms an important aspect of routine glenohumeral arthroscopic examination. We describe a new technique of direct visualization of the bicipital groove and tendon by positioning the arthroscope in linear alignment with the bicipital groove. A 4.5-mm cannula is introduced through a superior-medial (Neviaser) portal, into the glenohumeral joint, parallel and adjacent to the superior aspect of the biceps tendon, and is used as a viewing portal. The arm is then positioned in abduction, external rotation, and forward flexion, to align the groove with the arthroscope, thereby attempting to "look down the groove." The biceps tendon, as well as the structures forming its medial and lateral pulleys, can be evaluated from the glenohumeral and intertubercular aspects. A greater length of the medial and lateral lips and the floor and roof of the bicipital groove can be visualized by advancing the arthroscope deeper within the groove. A fat pad along the lateral wall of the groove serves as an anatomic landmark to limit dissection in this region, thereby preventing damage to the anterolateral ascending branch of the anterior circumflex artery. An extension of this technique, to facilitate instrumentation for arthroscopic biceps tenodesis, is described.