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

Arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis provided earlier shoulder function restoration compared with open subpectoral biceps tenodesis during the recovery phase

BACKGROUND

This study compared the clinical outcomes of open subpectoral biceps tenodesis and arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis for symptomatic biceps tenosynovitis. Although both techniques have pros and cons, no studies have compared clinical and functional outcomes during the recovery phase. Previous studies show that suprapectoral tenodesis has a higher probability of Popeye deformity and postoperative bicipital pain and stiffness, whereas subpectoral tenodesis has a higher risk of nerve complications and wound infections. This study aimed for clinical comparison between arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective review of institutional records of patients with biceps tendinitis who underwent open or arthroscopic biceps tenodesis. Surgical indications included biceps tenosynovitis, biceps partial tear, and biceps pulley lesion. Patients with prior shoulder surgery, preoperative shoulder stiffness, or full-thickness tear of rotator cuff were excluded. Tenodesis was considered when the pain recurs within 3 months despite conservative treatment including at least 2 triamcinolone injections on the biceps tendon sheath. Visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain, presence of the night pain, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Constant score, and range of motion were assessed preoperatively at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively and the last follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 72 patients (33 with arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodeses and 39 with open subpectoral biceps tenodeses) were included in analysis. At postoperative 6 months, lower VAS score (0.4 ± 0.8 vs. 1.7 ± 1.9, P < .001), and the presence of the night pain (2 [6%] vs. 14 [36%], P = .002), ASES score (89.6 ± 9.2 vs. 81.4 ± 14.6, P = .006), and Constant score (89.4 ± 5.6 vs. 82.0 ± 12.5, P = .003) compared with the subpectoral group. The mean number of postoperative steroid injections for pain control in the subpectoral group (0.51 ± 0.80) was significantly higher than that in the suprapectoral group (0.18 ± 0.40) (P = .031). However, postoperative clinical outcomes were restored similar between the 2 groups at 12 months and the last follow-up.

DISCUSSION

Arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis performed statistically better than the subpectoral biceps tenodesis for the VAS, ASES, night pain, and Constant score at postoperative 6 months. However, only night pain and the Constant score showed differences that exceeded minimum clinically important difference during the recovery phase. At postoperative 12 and 24 months, biceps tenodesis provided satisfactory clinical outcomes and pain relief regardless of the fixation technique and suture anchor location.

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.

Open Subpectoral Tenodesis for Isolated Traumatic Long Head of Biceps Tendon Rupture Provides Excellent Functional Outcomes in Active Male Patients

Background: For many years the long head of biceps tendon (LHBT) rupture has been described and is commonly identified by weakness, cramping, and the so-called "Popeye" sign. Traditionally, this was treated non-operatively, likely reflecting patient factors and the technical difficulty in reattaching a degenerative and shortened tendon. In contrast, traumatic distal biceps rupture is now commonly repaired despite historically being managed non-operatively. The advent of a convenient and reproducible surgical technique led to an increase in the rate of fixation, thereby improving the cramping and weakness associated with non-operative treatment. Given recent surgical advances within this field, many techniques are now present for LHBT pathology. We describe results from a cohort of patients suffering traumatic LHBT rupture who sought a surgical solution to improve their symptoms.

Methods: Over four years, 18 male patients underwent surgical intervention for isolated traumatic LHBT rupture. The technique used involved an open subpectoral tenodesis with fixation of the LHBT into the bicipital groove. Postoperative immobilization using a sling was recommended for six weeks prior to a progressive rehabilitation program. Patients were assessed with pre- and postoperative visual analog scores (VAS) for pain and American Shoulder and Elbow Society (ASES) scores.

Results: The mean patient age at the time of surgery was 49 years (range: 26-65 years). The mean time to surgery was nine weeks (range: 2-24 weeks). All patients showed an improvement following surgery with a mean pre-op ASES score of 33 (range: 10-60) compared to a post-op score of 92.6 (range: 85-100). All patients were able to return to work and sport, with all but one returning to the same functional demand level of work. The mean pre-op pain VAS was 6.3 (out of 10) compared to 0.2 post-op. All patients had a requirement for analgesia pre-operatively and none had postoperatively. No surgical complications were observed. No correlation was observed between the time to surgery and the outcome.

Discussion: LHBT rupture is often treated non-operatively as few studies within the literature describe the surgical technique and outcomes from surgical intervention. When treated non-operatively, patients complain of pain, cramping, and cosmetic deformity known as the "Popeye" sign. Following a traumatic rupture of the LHBT, we have demonstrated excellent outcomes using a standard approach and common fixation technique that has the potential to improve the functional outcome for symptomatic patients.

Conclusion: Open subpectoral biceps tenodesis is associated with excellent outcomes in symptomatic patients following isolated LHBT rupture.

Return to Play After Biceps Tenodesis for Isolated SLAP Tears in Overhead Athletes

BACKGROUND

Performing open subpectoral biceps tenodesis in overhead athletes with a superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) tear may affect their ability to return to overhead sports.

PURPOSE

To investigate clinical outcomes in overhead athletes undergoing biceps tenodesis for the treatment of symptomatic, isolated SLAP tears involving the biceps-labral complex.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A retrospective review of overhead athletes who underwent biceps tenodesis for a SLAP tear was performed. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain, subjective shoulder value (SSV), patient satisfaction, willingness to undergo surgery again, revision procedures, and return to play were evaluated. Psychological readiness to return to sport was evaluated using the SLAP-Return to Sport after Injury (SLAP-RSI) score. A P value of <.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

RESULTS

The current study included 44 overhead athletes. The mean age was 34.9 years (range, 16-46 years), 79.5% were male, and the mean follow-up was 49.0 months (range, 18-107 months). Overall, 81.8% of patients returned to play their overhead sport after biceps tenodesis, and 59.1% of patients returned to the same or higher level of play. It took patients, on average, 8.7 months to return to play after biceps tenodesis. The mean SLAP-RSI score was 69.4, and 70.5% of patients passed the SLAP-RSI threshold of 56. The mean ASES score, VAS score, SSV, and satisfaction were 92.0, 0.8, 80.6, and 87.9%, respectively. No patients in our cohort required revision surgery.

CONCLUSION

This study found that athletes undergoing biceps tenodesis for the treatment of a symptomatic, isolated SLAP tear had a high rate of return to play, good functional outcomes, and a low rate of revision surgery.

Arthroscopic Single-Portal Suprapectoral Biceps Tenodesis With All-Suture Anchor

Tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon can be performed through arthroscopic and open techniques with various fixation methods and at different locations on the humerus. Many techniques have been described, with controversy surrounding the advantages and disadvantages of each. In this Technical Note, we describe an all-arthroscopic, intra-articular, single-portal, suprapectoral biceps tenodesis with an all-suture anchor. This technique also allows for suture passage through the biceps tendon before tenotomy to ensure proper maintenance of the length-tension relationship of the biceps musculotendinous unit.

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.

Non-Adherence to Pain Medication Increases Risk of Postoperative Frozen Shoulder

Background

Postoperative frozen shoulder (FS) or adhesive capsulitis is a relatively frequent complication (5-20%), even after simple arthroscopic shoulder surgeries. The pathophysiology is still unclear, but psychological factors may play a pivotal role. From clinical experience, we hypothesized that patients, who are reluctant to take medications, particularly "pain-killers," have an increased incidence of postoperative FS.

Methods

We identified twenty patients who underwent limited arthroscopic operations of the shoulder and developed postoperative FS. Twenty patients with matching type of surgery, age, and gender served as control group (n = 20). All patients were at least one year postoperative and asymptomatic at the time of examination. Demographic data, the patient's adherence to self-medication (including self-medicating scale, SMS), development the Quality of life (QoL), and depression scale (PHQ-4-questionnaire) were assessed.

Results

Patients with FS had a 2-fold longer rehabilitation and 3-fold longer work inability compared to the patients without FS (P < 0.009 and P < 0.003, respectively). Subjective shoulder value SSV (P = 0.075) and post-operative improvement of QoL (P = 0.292) did not differ among the groups. There was a trend-but not significant-toward less coherence to self-medication in the FS-group (26.50 vs. 29.50; P = 0.094). Patients with postoperative FS significantly more often stated not to have "taken pain-killers as prescribed" (P = 0.003).

Conclusions

Patients reporting unwillingness to take the prescribed pain medications had a significantly higher incidence of postoperative FS. It remains unclear whether the increased risk of developing FS is due to reduced postoperative analgesia or a critical attitude toward taking medication. However, patients who are reluctant to take painkillers should strongly be encouraged to take medications as prescribed.

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.

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

IMPORTANCE

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

OBJECTIVE

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

EVIDENCE REVIEW

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

FINDINGS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

[Injuries of the biceps-labrum complex : Principles, pathologies and treatment concepts]

BACKGROUND

The biceps-labrum complex is prone to acute lesions and degenerative changes due to its anatomical structure and the high load it has to endure. Pathological changes of these structures are common pain generators and can significantly impair shoulder function. Anatomically, the biceps-labrum complex can be divided into three zones: inside, junction and bicipital tunnel.

DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE

Despite the focused physical examination and advancements in imaging techniques, the exact localization of pathologies remains challenging. Arthroscopy can be used to accurately diagnose inside and junctional pathologies but extra-articular changes in the region of the bicipital tunnel can only be partially visualized.

TREATMENT

In cases of unsuccessful conservative treatment and correct indications, a high level of patient satisfaction can be surgically achieved. In young patients an anatomical reconstruction of inside lesions or tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon is performed; however, even tenotomy is a valuable option and can achieve equally satisfactory results. Unaddressed pathological changes of the bicipital tunnel can lead to persistence of pain. In clinical procedures performing tenodesis, both the different techniques and the implants used have been found to show similar results. This article describes the anatomical principles, pathological changes, the focused clinical instrumental diagnostics and discusses the different treatment philosophies as well as the outcome according to the recent literature.

Anatomic limitations of biceps tenodesis using an interference screw for Asian people: a cadaveric study

Background

Biceps tenodesis using an interference screw has been commonly performed in clinical practice because of pathologic changes. Especially, the tenodesis distal to the bicipital groove, such as suprapectoral tenodesis (SPT) and subpectoral tenodesis (SBT), has been performed to avoid residual anterior shoulder pain. However, the techniques were developed based on research tested on Western population, and it is unknown whether they are applicable to Asian individuals, who have a smaller humerus than Western. The purpose of this study was to investigate the anatomic limitations of the biceps tenodesis using an interference screw for Asians.

Methods

We analyzed 22 fixed Japanese cadavers. We measured the length of the suprapectoral tenodesis zone (STZ), which is the area from the distal end of the lesser tuberosity to the proximal border of the insertion of the pectoralis major muscle tendon (PMMT) along the course of the biceps tendon, for the SPT. We also measured the bone tunnel depths (BTDs) for the SPT just distal to the lesser tuberosity along the course of the biceps tendon and, similarly, for the SBT just distal to the PMMT insertion. Finally, we analyzed the sexual differences and correlations of the measured values with the entire humeral length.

Results

In 9 shoulders (40.9%), the proximal border of the PMMT insertion was attached more proximally than the distal end of the lesser tuberosity, and the length of the STZ was negative. The mean BTDs in the SPT and SBT zones were 19.6 and 14.9 mm, respectively. In 11 shoulders (50%), the BTD in the SBT zone was shorter than 15 mm. The lengths of the STZ or BTDs in the SPT and SBT zones did not show statistical differences between sexes and were not correlated with the entire humeral length.

Conclusion

Asian patients would have anatomic limitations as follows for the biceps tenodesis regardless of their sex or body size. In anomalous PMMT cases, when the SPT was performed just proximal to the PMMT insertion, the bone tunnel entered into the bicipital groove. On the other hand, when the SPT was performed distal to the lesser tuberosity, a part of the PMMT insertion would be injured. Regarding the SBT, an interference screw with a length of ≥12 mm, which is commonly used in Western countries, is too long for Asians.

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.

Mini-open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Using All-Suture Anchor

The proximal biceps tendon is a common source of shoulder pain and dysfunction. When patients continue to have pain after exhaustive nonoperative treatment, the long head of the biceps tendon can be effectively treated with a tenotomy or tenodesis. Although biceps tenotomy is a less complex and highly reliable treatment, there is the potential for suboptimal outcomes including muscle cramping, fatigue, cosmetic deformity, and supination weakness. Biceps tenodesis eliminates the source of shoulder pain while securing the tendon proximally. Currently, there are multiple techniques for performing a biceps tenodesis (arthroscopic, open suprapectoral, open subpectoral) and myriad fixation methods (bio-tenodesis screw, bone bridge, cortical button, all-suture anchor). Our article presents a technique for a mini-open subpectoral biceps tenodesis using an onlay technique with an all-suture anchor preloaded with needles. This technique allows efficient and proper tendon fixation while minimizing potential complications.

Trends in Open and Arthroscopic Long Head of Biceps Tenodesis

BACKGROUND

In young and active patients, long head of biceps (LHB) tenodesis has become a common procedure for managing LHB pathology, but it remains unclear whether it is performed in isolation or along with other shoulder procedures and whether open and arthroscopic techniques produce different complications.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We sought to determine and compare open and arthroscopic LHB tenodesis in terms of (a) trends in overall use, (b) trends in use in isolation and in association with rotator cuff repair (RCR) and superior labral tear from anterior-to-posterior (SLAP) debridement/repair, and (c) the rates of post-operative complications.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of data from an insurance database to identify LHB tenodesis procedures performed from 2011 to 2014. The overall annual rates of open and arthroscopic LHB tenodesis were determined and then stratified according to concurrent RCR and SLAP repair/debridement. A multivariate logistic regression analysis that controlled for patient demographics (age, sex, comorbidity) was performed.

RESULTS

Overall, 8547 patients underwent LHB tenodesis, of which 43.5% were open and 56.5% were arthroscopic procedures. There was a significant increase in the utilization of LHB tenodesis from 2011 to 2014. In isolation, open LHB tenodesis was the more common technique overall and by year. Arthroscopic LHB tenodesis was the most common tenodesis technique performed in conjunction with RCR and SLAP repair/debridement. The overall complication rate was 2.9%; only wound dehiscence demonstrated a difference between techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

The rates of open and arthroscopic LHB tenodesis procedures increased significantly from 2011 to 2014, with open techniques more common when LHB tenodesis is performed in isolation and arthroscopic techniques more common when performed as a concomitant procedure. Our use of a population database did not allow us to evaluate biomechanical or cost-related phenomena, and future research should examine these and other relevant differences between these two LHB tenodesis techniques.

Editorial Commentary: Aim High or Go Low? Outcomes Are Equivalent for Arthroscopic Suprapectoral and Mini-open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis

The contemporary management of biceps-labral pathology has increasingly transitioned toward primary treatment of the long head of the biceps tendon, largely in response to more consistent outcomes relative to SLAP repair and so-called benign neglect. Accordingly, there has been renewed interest in evaluating relevant differences between varying operative techniques and constructs for biceps tenodesis, including an array of subacromial, intra-articular, suprapectoral, and subpectoral methods. Among these, arthroscopic suprapectoral tenodesis and mini-open subpectoral tenodesis remain in contention for "best in show," albeit with distinctly different merits and risks. Important considerations with either technique include restoration of the native length-tension relation, avoidance of perioperative complications, surgical-site morbidity, and technical ease. Dogma aside, surgeons facile with both techniques can confidently counsel their patients on the comparable short-term results after suprapectoral or subpectoral biceps tenodesis.

Increased reoperation rates among patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy with concomitant biceps tenodesis

Background

The purpose of this study was to determine whether patients undergoing any shoulder arthroscopic procedure with concomitant biceps tenodesis have higher reoperation and complication rates vs. patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy without concomitant biceps tenodesis.

Methods

A large database was queried for patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy, identified by Current Procedural Terminology code. Only records indicating the laterality of the procedure were included. Patients were divided into 3 cohorts: arthroscopic shoulder surgery without concomitant biceps tenodesis (group 1), surgery with arthroscopic biceps tenodesis (group 2), and surgery with open biceps tenodesis (group 3). Reoperations on the same shoulder, as well as medical or surgical complications (by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code) during the 30-day postoperative period, were determined. Multivariate logistic regression was used to control for differences in age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index between groups.

Results

We identified 62,461 patients (54.3% male patients) in the database who underwent shoulder arthroscopy, with 51,773 patients in group 1, 7134 patients in group 2, and 3554 patients in group 3. Overall, 3134 patients (5.0%) underwent a shoulder arthroscopy reoperation. With adjustment for age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, the biceps intervention groups demonstrated a significantly higher overall reoperation rate (odds ratio, 1.3 [95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.5]; P < .001). Patients undergoing biceps tenodesis had a lower adjusted overall 30-day complication rate vs. those not undergoing tenodesis (odds ratio, 0.82 [95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.86]; P < .001).

Conclusion

Reoperation rates were significantly higher in patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy with biceps tenodesis than in patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy without biceps tenodesis. Both the arthroscopic and open tenodesis groups had significantly lower complication rates.

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

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

Open Compared with Arthroscopic Biceps Tenodesis: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Biceps tenodesis can be performed via an open or arthroscopic approach, and there is currently no consensus over which method is superior. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the cohort studies available in the literature to ascertain if open or arthroscopic techniques for biceps tenodesis result in superior clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic search of articles in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Cohort studies comparing the open and arthroscopic techniques for biceps tenodesis were included.

RESULTS

Seven clinical trials were identified with 598 patients. The mean follow-up was 23.6 months. In all of the included studies, there was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in any of the functional outcome scoring systems used, including, most commonly, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score and the Constant score. Similarly, no study found a significant difference (p > 0.05) in either patient satisfaction or return to sport. However, 2 studies found a slightly higher rate of complications with the arthroscopic technique due to an increased rate of fixation failure in 1 study and stiffness in the other study.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that both open tenodesis and arthroscopic tenodesis result in excellent clinical outcomes, with no significant differences between either method.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Anatomic landmarks for arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis: a cadaveric study

BACKGROUND

Biceps tenodesis reduces the incidence of Popeye deformity occurring with tenotomy, but pain may occur with tenodesis superior to or within the bicipital groove. Arthroscopic suprapectoral tenodesis is an attractive alternative. The purpose of this study was to establish landmarks for arthroscopic suprapectoral tenodesis and determine the appropriate fixation point to optimize muscle tension.

METHODS

Twelve fresh cadaveric shoulders were dissected. Urethane polymer was injected into the axillary artery. The position of the anterior branch of the axillary nerve was marked. The transverse humeral ligament was split, exposing the biceps (long head of the biceps [LHB]) from its origin to the pectoralis major tendon (PMT). The intra-articular portion was released. Measurements were taken from the proximal tendon to described landmarks.

RESULTS

The mean length of the intra-articular LHB was 2.53 cm (range, 1.72-3.55 cm). The mean distance from the LHB origin to the inferior lesser tuberosity (LT) was 5.58 cm (range, 4.02-6.87 cm), and that to the superior border of the PMT was 8.46 cm (range, 6.46-10.78 cm). The suprapectoral tenodesis zone (inferior LT to superior PMT) was 2.96 cm (range, 1.54-4.40 cm). In all specimens, a branch of the anterior humeral circumflex arose medial to the LHB and distal to the LT and crossed the suprapectoral zone from medial to lateral at 1.49 ± 0.42 cm proximal to the PMT, approximately at the level of the axillary nerve. The musculocutaneous nerve was on average 3.06 cm (range, 1.86-3.76 cm) from the tenodesis zone.

CONCLUSION

A branch of the anterior humeral circumflex is a reliable landmark for identifying the mid-suprapectoral zone. The distance from the proximal LHB tendon to this crossing vessel averaged 6.32 cm in female specimens and 8.28 cm in male specimens. These findings allow appropriate tensioning of the LHB during arthroscopic suprapectoral tenodesis.

Radiologic and Histologic Evaluation of Proximal Bicep Pathology in Patients With Chronic Biceps Tendinopathy Undergoing Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis

PURPOSE

To correlate preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and intraoperative anatomic findings within the proximal long head biceps tendon to histologic evaluation of 3 separate zones of the tendon in patients with chronic biceps tendinopathy.

METHODS

Sixteen patients with chronic biceps tendinopathy were treated with open subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Preoperative MRI tendon grading was as follows: normal tendon, increased signal, tendon splitting, incomplete/complete tear. The removed portion of the biceps tendon was split into 3 segments: zone 1, 0-3.5 cm from the labral insertion; zone 2, 3.5-6.5 cm; and zone 3, 6.5-9 cm, and was histologically evaluated using the Bonar score. Tenosynovium adjacent to the tendon was assessed histologically using the Osteoarthritis Research Society International score. CD31, CD3, and CD79a immunohistochemistries were conducted to determine vascularization, T-cell infiltrates, and B-cell infiltrates, respectively. Analysis of variance and Pearson correlations were performed for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Preoperative MRI showed no significant differences in tendon appearance between zones 1-3. Intraoperative findings included nonspecific degenerative SLAP tears or mild/moderate biceps tenosynovitis in all cases. Significantly (P < .001) higher Bonar scores were noted for tendon in zones 1 (7.9 ± 1.8) and 2 (7.3 ± 1.5) compared with zone 3 (5.0 ± 1.1). Cell morphology scores in zone 1 (1.9 ± 0.4) and zone 2 (1.5 ± 0.6) were significantly higher than that in zone 3 (0.8 ± 0.3) (P < .05). Inflammatory tenosynovium showed weak correlation with tendon changes in zone 1 (r = 0.08), zone 2 (r = 0.03), or zone 3 (r = 0.1).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with chronic long head biceps tendinopathy who underwent open subpectoral tenodesis, MRI and intraoperative assessment did not show significant structural abnormalities within the tendon despite significant histopathologic changes. Severity of tendon histopathology was more pronounced in the proximal and mid-portions of the tendon.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Proximal versus distal biceps tenodesis is a subject of frequent debate. This study contributes to the ongoing evaluation of the characteristics of the proximal biceps in this type of pathologic condition.

The influence of suprapectoral arthroscopic biceps tenodesis for isolated biceps lesions on elbow flexion force and clinical outcomes

PURPOSE

To prospectively evaluate elbow flexion force, cosmetic and clinical outcome of all-arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis for isolated biceps lesions.

METHODS

Tenodesis was performed using a 6.25-mm absorbable interference screw for intraosseous fixation. Seventeen out of 24 patients (70.8 %, median age 49.0 ± 10.1 years; 10 = male) could be included for 24 months follow-up. Elbow flexion strength in 10° and 90° elbow flexion, the upward-directed force of the upper arm in the O'Brien position, objective evaluation of a Popeye-sign deformity and validated clinical scores (CMS, SST, ASES) were assessed preoperatively, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

Elbow flexion strength in 90° improved significantly from 12 months onwards (P = 0.001) without significant difference to the contralateral arm from 3 months postoperatively (n.s.). At 24 months, an average increase of 46.4 % (median 37.7 %) from preoperative could be seen. The dominant arm was affected in 70.6 %. All scores showed a significant improvement 3 months postoperatively: SST (P = 0.003), ASES (P = 0.006) and total CMS (P < 0.001). Three patients (17.6 %) developed a distalization of the maximum biceps circumference of more than 20 % compared to preoperative.

CONCLUSIONS

All-arthroscopic proximal suprapectoral intraosseous single-limb biceps tenodesis for the treatment of isolated biceps lesions provides good-to-excellent clinical results with significant improvement of elbow flexion strength and clinical scores and no significant difference to the unaffected contralateral arm.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Mini-open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Using a Suture Anchor

The long head of the biceps (LHB) tendon is a potential source of shoulder pain encountered by orthopaedic surgeons. A multitude of approaches to addressing LHB tendinopathy have been described. These include various surgical techniques such as tenodesis versus tenotomy, an arthroscopic versus an open approach, and differing methods of tenodesis fixation. Our preferred approach to addressing LHB tendinopathy is through a mini-open approach using a double-loaded 4.5-mm suture anchor. This Technical Note with accompanying video describes our technique for performing this procedure, as well as supporting clinical evidence and technical pearls.

Suprapectoral biceps tenodesis using a suture plate: clinical results after 2 years

PURPOSE

Several techniques for performing a tenodesis of the long head of biceps (LHB) are described. Only few outcome studies are published. This note describes a unicortical fixation via a suture plate-comparable to a distal biceps refixation-performed arthroscopically or mini-open via standard suprapectoral approach. The aim of this study is to show the clinical outcome after 6, 12, and 24 months.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A consecutive series of 50 (35 male, 15 female) patients at the mean age of 49 years (range 23-75) who underwent tenodesis of the LHB were followed for 2 years. All patients were operated by a single surgeon (CS). The clinical evaluation included Constant score, Scheibel LHB score and VAS. Structural integrity of the tenodesis was checked by ultrasound control. Integrity of the tenodesis was evaluated indirectly by detecting the LHB-tendon up to the ultrasound-reflex of the button. No tendon at the button-reflex was considered as failure of the tenodesis. An independent examiner who was not the operating surgeon performed all evaluations. (MG evaluated the patients operated by CS).

RESULTS

Mean follow-up was 29.5 (range 22-32) months. The mean pre-operative Constant Murley score (CMS) was 67.4 points (range 45-78) and increased to 84.7 points (range 51-99) after 2 years. LHB Score was 90.8 after 24 months. We identified 2 failed biceps fixations (4%). Pain relief was achieved in most patients within the first 12 weeks. After 2 years, the mean biceps flexion strength averaged 84% of the healthy arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Tenodesis of the LHB with a unicortical suture plate is a safe fixation technique with good-to-excellent clinical results after a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Long-term follow-up is needed.

Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis for Tenosynovitis of the Long Head of the Biceps in Active Patients Younger Than 45 Years Old

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to assess the outcomes after subpectoral biceps tenodesis (BT) for long head of the biceps (LHB) tenosynovitis in active patients <45 years old.

METHODS

This was an Institutional Review Board-approved, retrospective outcomes study with prospectively collected data. Patients treated with subpectoral BT were included if they met the following criteria: age <45 years, anterior shoulder pain with arthroscopically confirmed LHB tenosynovitis, no concomitant procedures other than debridement and decompression procedures, and minimum 2 years out from surgery. Patients were excluded from analysis if they refused participation. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Short Form-12, Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and pain scores as well as sports participation preoperatively and at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively were obtained. Pre- and postoperative scores were compared using paired samples t-test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

RESULTS

Thirty patients met the inclusion criteria. Two of these patients refused to participate in follow-up and were excluded from analysis. Of the remaining 28 patients (17 male, 11 female; 37.0 ± 8.0 years), minimum 2-year outcomes were available for 24 (13 males, 11 females: 37.7 ± 8.2 years; 85.7%). Mean follow-up was 3.1 years (range, 2.0 to 7.3 years). There were significant improvements in all outcome measures including ASES score (P < .001), with a postoperative mean of 95.8 ± 7.8, visual analog scale "pain today" (P < .001), and pain affecting activities of daily living (P < .001). Seventeen of 20 (85%) patients who answered the question about postoperative sport participation were able to return to sport. Mean patient satisfaction was 9.2/10 (standard deviation, +1.7). There were no postoperative complications such as Popeye deformity or cramping. There were no clinical failures.

CONCLUSIONS

Subpectoral BT is an excellent treatment option for active patients <45 years old with LHB tenosynovitis and chronic anterior shoulder pain, resulting in decreased pain, improved function, high satisfaction, and improved quality of life.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Patient Satisfaction After Biceps Tenotomy

Background:

Biceps tenotomy and tenodesis are frequently performed for proximal biceps lesions; however, there continues to be debate as to which method is superior. This study examined patient-reported outcomes after biceps tenotomy.

Hypothesis:

Biceps tenotomy in the setting of concomitant shoulder pathology is a reasonable option with high satisfaction rates and a low incidence of pain and cramping in middle-aged to older individuals.

Study Design:

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

A total of 104 patients (mean age, 63.5 years; range, 40-81 years) were evaluated at the time of surgery and at a mean follow-up of 38.4 months (range, 22-57 months). Biceps tenotomy was performed as a component of more extensive shoulder surgery in all patients. Patient satisfaction, frequency of cramping and spasms, biceps pain, weakness, and cosmetic deformity were evaluated at over 1-year follow-up.

Results:

Ninety-one percent of patients were satisfied or very satisfied with their surgical outcome, and 95% would have their surgery again. Three patients who reported being unsatisfied or very unsatisfied had either advanced glenohumeral arthritis or an irreparable rotator cuff tear. Cosmetic deformity occurred in 13% of patients. Twenty percent reported spasms and cramping in their biceps, and 19% reported some biceps pain; however, frequency of spasms and cramping was typically once weekly, and biceps pain was reported as severe or very severe in only 2 patients. Subjective biceps weakness was reported in 17% of patients. Age had no effect on outcome measures, and female sex was associated with less limitation and greater satisfaction after tenotomy compared with men.

Conclusion:

Our results indicate that patient-reported downsides to biceps tenotomy were usually mild and/or infrequent and did not affect patient satisfaction. We conclude that biceps tenotomy is a viable option that can lead to a high rate of patient satisfaction and outcomes in middle-aged to older individuals undergoing shoulder surgery with biceps pathology.

Arthroscopic Suprapectoral and Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis: Radiographic Characteristics

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

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.

Tenoscopic Suprapectoral Biceps Tenodesis

Existing arthroscopic techniques of proximal biceps tenodesis may be complicated by difficulty of tendon identification, restoration of length-tension relation, cosmetic deformity, persistent biceps pain, and shoulder stiffness requiring surgical revision in a relevant proportion of cases. In this context, biceps tenoscopy, an emerging discipline of shoulder endoscopy, offers major benefits. Tenoscopy comprises endoscopic treatment of tendons and tendon sheaths. The presented technique of tenoscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (TSBT) substantially facilitates tendon identification and reduces invasiveness by avoidance of unnecessary surgical involvement of the deltoid space and bursa. TSBT enables effective treatment of the biceps tendon and surrounding tissues (biceps tendon sheath, tenosynovium, transverse humeral ligament) being consistently involved in proximal biceps pathologies. The physiological length-tension relation of the musculotendinous unit is reliably maintained. Technically, the procedure of tenodesis is simplified and accelerated by redundancy of tendon exteriorization. The aforementioned benefits of TSBT may lead to superior clinical and cosmetic outcomes and lower incidences of persistent proximal biceps pain and postoperative shoulder stiffness compared with conventional techniques of arthroscopic biceps tenodesis.

Regional mechanical properties of the long head of the biceps tendon

BACKGROUND

Long head of the biceps tenodesis reliably relieves pain, and restores strength, stability, and normal appearance of the upper extremity in the event of biceps tendinopathies. Regional differences in tendon mechanics may provide surgeons with valuable guidance in the placement of the tenodesis repair construct. The purpose of this study was to compare the mechanical properties of the long head of the biceps tendon in three functional regions of the tendon: intra-articular (proximal), suprapectoral (middle), and subpectoral (distal).

METHODS

Uniaxial tensile tests were performed on the long head of the biceps tendon segments to quantify the material and structural properties of the tendon. Material properties were obtained using dogbone-shaped specimens while structural properties were obtained using intact specimens where the clamp boundary conditions simulated the common "gold standard" tenodesis, the interference screw.

FINDINGS

Elastic modulus for the supra- and subpectoral regions were significantly greater than the intra-articular region (P≤0.048). The tensile strength of the subpectoral region tended to be lower compared to all other functional regions (P=0.051). The failure mechanism for intact specimens was similar to that seen for interference screw fixation where tissue failure occurs due to tearing at the bone/tendon/screw interface.

INTERPRETATION

The higher tensile strength of the suprapectoral region compared to the subpectoral region may make this a more desirable location for tenodesis placement based on tissue strength. Similar elastic moduli and structural stiffness between the supra- and subpectoral regions indicate that the construct type may play a bigger role in functional outcomes in relation to construct deformation.

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.

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.