Conversion of Failed Proximal Long Head of the Biceps Tenodesis to Distal Subpectoral Tenodesis: Outcomes in an Active Population

Outcomes of Biceps Tenodesis Variations With Concomitant Rotator Cuff Repair: A Multicenter Database Analysis

Background

Studies to date comparing biceps tenodesis methods in the setting of concomitant rotator cuff repair (RCR) have demonstrated relatively equivalent pain and functional outcomes.

Purpose

To compare biceps tenodesis constructs, locations, and techniques in patients who underwent RCR using a large multicenter database.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

A global outcome database was queried for patients with medium- and large-sized tears who underwent biceps tenodesis with RCR between 2015 and 2021. Patients ≥18 years of age with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were included. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, visual analog scale for pain, and Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) scores were compared at 1 and 2 years of follow-up based on construct (anchor, screw, or suture), location (subpectoral, suprapectoral, or top of groove), and technique (inlay or onlay). Nonparametric hypothesis testing was used to compare continuous outcomes at each time point. The proportion of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at the 1- and 2-year follow-ups were compared between groups using chi-square tests.

Results

A total of 1903 unique shoulder entries were analyzed. Improvement in VR-12 Mental score favored anchor and suture fixations at 1 year of follow-up (P = .042) and the onlay tenodesis technique at 2 years of follow-up (P = .029). No additional tenodesis comparisons demonstrated statistical significance. The proportion of patients with improvement exceeding the MCID did not differ based on tenodesis methods for any outcome score assessed at the 1- or 2-year follow-up.

Conclusion

Biceps tenodesis with concomitant RCR led to improved outcomes regardless of tenodesis fixation construct, location, or technique. A clear optimal tenodesis method with RCR remains to be determined. Surgeon preference and experience with various tenodesis methods as well as patient clinical presentation should continue to guide surgical decision-making.

Revision Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis With Allograft Tendon Reconstruction for Symptomatic Failed Biceps Tenodesis

Biceps tenodesis and tenotomy are both effective surgical procedures for management of shoulder pain and dysfunction secondary to SLAP tears, biceps tendinitis, rotator interval pulley lesions, and failed SLAP repairs. These procedures are generally safe with low complication rates. However, failure of a proximal biceps tenodesis or tenotomy can rarely lead to symptomatic Popeye deformity with pain and cramping with repetitive forearm supination and elbow flexion. Surgical revision is indicated in young active patients to restore the length tension relationship of the biceps brachii to improve supination and flexion strength, as well as to provide symptomatic relief and improved endurance. Failed biceps tenodesis can be a challenging surgical scenario, as oftentimes there is limited available proximal biceps tendon tissue, especially in the setting of prior subpectoral biceps tenodesis. We report a technique of revision open subpectoral biceps tenodesis with allograft tendon augmentation for the management of symptomatic Popeye deformity in young active patients with little to no remaining proximal biceps tendon.

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.

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.

Editorial Commentary: What Is More Important: Strength or Displacement? Findings of All-Suture Anchor Versus Interference Screw for Biceps Tenodesis

Tendinopathy of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHB) encompasses a range of pathology, including inflammatory tendinitis to degenerative tendinosis that can lead to pain, as well as instability of the LHB and its surrounding stabilizers. Accordingly, tenodesis of the LHB during shoulder surgery has been increasingly cited in the literature as a viable surgical option for the treatment of LHB pathology. While current treatment options include the use of multiple devices for tenodesis of the LHB, there remains a paucity of literature that investigates the biomechanical advantages of all-suture anchor devices compared to interference screws.

Editorial Commentary: Biceps Tenodesis Location May Not Matter: Go High…Go Low…Go Wherever You Want to Go!

Tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon has long been a source of dialogue, discussion, debate, and dogma. In general, the shoulder literature has been exhaustive regarding various biceps tenodesis techniques and outcomes, and studies have shown positive clinical outcomes of tenodesis, regardless of location, along the proximal humerus. Fewer studies have evaluated the outcomes of revision tenodesis; however, those that have looked at this have generally found that a revision to a subpectoral tenodesis site is usually quite successful.