Low incidence of failure after proximal biceps tenodesis with unicortical suture button

Validating a Novel 3D Printed Depth Gauge With Mandible Models

Background/needTraditional bone depth gauges are notoriously inaccurate tools, often used in head and neck surgery, that estimate the screw length needed for fracture fixation after bicortical drilling. Complications related to inaccurately sized screws may include soft tissue irritation or weakness of the repair and subsequent refracture. To improve size selection accuracy, a prototype depth gauge was 3D printed and tested in mandibles.MethodsThe prototype was constructed with a rotating deployable hook and intra-operative disassembly feature to extract the device if it became stuck. Ten 3.2 mm holes were drilled in a synthetic mandible, and 12 medical students, 12 residents, and 6 fellows/attendings measured them with industry standard and prototype depth gauges. User measurements from the prototype were compared to the holes' true depths and accuracy for each device was based on a user's closeness to the true depths. Differences between devices and training levels were analyzed with paired t tests and two-way ANOVAs. The device was also tested by 2 attendings in 2 cadavers with 8 holes drilled in each mandible.ResultsIn the synthetic model, differences between true depths and measured depths for the 2 gauges were not significantly different. Total accuracy was greater with the prototype, along with increased medical student accuracy compared to the industry standard. Prototype malfunctions were noted in the cadaveric model with no significant differences in device accuracy.ConclusionA novel 3D-printed depth gauge was tested and found to improve first time user accuracy and perform non-inferiorly to an industry standard depth gauge.

Comparable and Improved Clinical Outcomes, Pain Relief, Return to Sport, and Low Popeye Deformity Rates in Inlay Versus Onlay Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To directly compare clinical outcomes, including failure rates, incidence of Popeye deformity, and return to sport (RTS)/activity between inlay and onlay fixation techniques specifically for open subpectoral biceps tenodesis.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted for studies published between 2014 and 2024. Inclusion criteria consisted of Level I to IV studies in English, reporting clinical outcomes for open subpectoral biceps tenodesis with at least a 2-year follow-up. Data on patient-reported outcome measures, RTS, Popeye deformity, and failure rates were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria. Statistical analysis was performed to evaluate heterogeneity, and clinical outcomes between fixation techniques were compared using qualitative analysis and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies with a total of 498 patients (347 in the inlay group, 151 in the onlay group) were included. Postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores ranged from 78.6 to 95.8, visual analog scale pain scores from 0.25 to 2.6, and Constant-Murley scores from 26.7 to 91.8, with no differences noted between inlay and onlay techniques across these measures on qualitative assessment. RTS rates were similarly comparable, ranging from 62% to 93% across all studies. The incidence of Popeye deformity was low in both groups, ranging from 0% to 7.7% for inlay fixation and from 0% to 6.7% for onlay fixation, with no qualitative differences observed. Heterogeneity in outcomes was attributed to variations in study design and patient populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Both inlay and onlay fixation for open subpectoral biceps tenodesis showed comparable clinical outcomes, similar pain relief, and low rates of Popeye deformity. RTS rates were consistently high across both techniques. The choice of fixation method did not significantly impact the overall results, suggesting that either technique can be used effectively based on surgeon and patient preferences.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level I to IV studies.

Unicortical button fixation provides higher strength compared with transosseous repair for subscapularis tendon in total shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Subscapularis tendon (SSc) dysfunction after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) results in poor functional outcomes. There have been numerous SSc repair constructs tested biomechanically and clinically; however, none has been demonstrated as superior. Newer techniques and implants have emerged but have not been fully tested.

HYPOTHESIS

We hypothesized that the unicortical button (UB) fixation would provide significantly improved restoration of the anatomic footprint and biomechanical properties compared with transosseous (TO) repair of the SSc.

METHODS

A digital footprint of SSc humeral insertion was obtained in 6 pairs of fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders using a 3-dimensional digitizer. A complete SSc tear was created, and each pair of shoulders was randomized to either SSc repair with UB or TO repair. Each specimen underwent a cyclic loading protocol, followed by pull to failure. The failure load, elongation at failure, gapping failure, number of cycles until failure, the load at key gapping points (1 mm, 3 mm, 5 mm, and 10 mm), and the failure mode were recorded using high-resolution video recording. Three-dimensional surfaces of the insertion footprint and repair site were obtained, and surface areas were calculated using a custom MATLAB script and laser scanner. Paired t tests were conducted to compare differences between the 2 repair groups.

RESULTS

Failure load was significantly higher in the UB group (382.4 N ± 56.5 N) than in the TO group (253.6 N ± 103.4 N, P = .005). TO repair provided higher gapping at failure (28.8 mm ± 8.2 mm) than UB repair (10.4 mm ± 6.8 mm, P = .0017). UB repair had significantly higher load at the 1-mm, 5-mm, and 10-mm gapping than TO repair, with P = .042, P = .033, and P = .0076, respectively. There were no significant differences in elongation failure, the difference in footprint area from native to repair states, or the percentage of the restored footprint area between the groups (P = .26, P = .18, and P = .21, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The UB fixation showed a significantly lower gap at failure, higher failure load and number of cycles until failure, and higher gap loads than the traditional TO repair for SSc. Although more clinical research is necessary, the UB fixation that uses cortical bone presents promising results.

Suture Button Fixation in Shoulder Instability Surgery to Achieve Bone Healing: A Critical Analysis Review

» Suture button fixation has emerged as an effective surgical construct in arthroscopic and open Latarjet and anterior glenoid reconstruction with free autograft bone with high rates of bone block healing.» Biomechanical data suggest that screw and suture button mechanical fixation constructs provide similar load to failure and stability for the Latarjet procedure.» Preliminary bone healing models have identified that flexible fixation may exhibit a higher degree of bone callus maturation, whereas rigid fixation results in excessive callus hyperplasia» Mechanical tensioner use provides consistent tensioning of suture button constructs and improves bone-to-bone healing rates when used for anterior glenoid reconstruction surgery.» Evidence is lacking regarding the reliability of bone-to-bone healing of allografts to native bone with use of suture button constructs.» Suture button fixation provides good short- and mid-term clinical outcomes for the arthroscopic Latarjet and anterior glenoid reconstruction with free autograft bone.

Comparison of clinical outcomes and return to sport between unicortical versus bicortical button fixation techniques for subpectoral biceps tenodesis

PURPOSE

There is limited clinical outcome data comparing fixation methods for tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT), particularly button fixation. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, and return to sport (RTS) between patients undergoing LHBT with bicortical versus unicortical button technique. The authors hypothesized these fixation methods would be similar for all outcomes.

METHODS

Patients who underwent LHBT using unicortical or bicortical button fixation with minimum 2-year follow-up were identified. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) questionnaire and visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score. A sports activity survey was collected to assess baseline sport participation and ability to return to pre-injury activities. Continuous variables were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney-U test. Categorical variables were analyzed using Chi-squared tests. Multivariable logistic and linear regression were performed to determine predictors of RTS and time to RTS.

RESULTS

Sixty-four subjects (19 unicortical and 45 bicortical button fixation) were included (average follow-up 3.5 (range: 2.0-7.8) years). There were no significant differences found between button groups for VAS pain score (1.5 vs. 1.2; p = 0.876), VAS pain during sport score (1.6 vs. 1.1, p = 0.398), and ASES score (66 vs. 71; p = 0.294). There were no significant differences in rate of RTS (75.0 vs. 77.4%; p = 0.885) or average time to return to sport (11.7 ± 7.3 vs. 7.0 ± 4.0 months; p = 0.081) between groups.

CONCLUSION

There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes, pain, or return to sport between patients who underwent LHBT with unicortical or bicortical button fixation.

Long-term patient-reported outcomes of open subpectoral biceps tenodesis with cortical button fixation

BACKGROUND

Open subpectoral biceps tenodesis (OSBT) with cortical button fixation has been shown to deliver acceptable results in the short and intermediate term for long head of the biceps (LHB) pathology with the benefit of smaller bone tunnel diameter and a reduced risk of postoperative humeral shaft fracture. The primary purpose of this study was to determine whether OSBT with cortical button fixation results in significant improvements in patient reported outcomes (PROs) from pre-operative to long-term final follow-up.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent OSBT with cortical button fixation at a single institution between the years of 2012 and 2014 was conducted and PROs were collected in the intermediate (> 2 years follow-up) and long term (> 9 years follow-up). PROs were measured pre-operatively, at intermediate follow-up, and at long-term follow-up using three validated questionnaires: American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score, and Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS). Patients were additionally asked at final follow-up if they would undergo the same procedure again if they needed it.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine (29) patients with a mean age of 51.16 ± 9.06 years at the time of surgery were included in the study at final follow-up. Mean final follow-up time was 10.2 ± 0.5 years (range: 9.2-11.1 years). All PROs (ASES, OSS, and DASH) demonstrated statistically significant improvements from pre-operative to final follow-up with p < 0.01 for each. The proportions of patients exceeding established values for minimum clinically important difference (MCID) were 96.55%, 93.10%, and 75.86% for ASES, OSS, and DASH respectively. Only one patient had required re-operation as of final follow-up. None experienced humeral fractures post-operatively. A significant majority (89.66%; p < 0.01) of patients reported that they would undergo the same procedure again if they needed it. Fifty-three (53) patients were included in the study at intermediate follow-up with a mean follow-up time of 3.5 ± 1.4 years (range: 2-5.3 years). There were no statistically significant differences in any of the PRO measures from intermediate to long-term follow-up.

CONCLUSION

This study reported a minimum 9-year follow-up of patients undergoing OSBT with cortical button fixation for the management of LHBT pathology in the setting of concomitant shoulder procedures. All patients had significantly improved functional outcomes assessed with ASES, OSS, and DASH and no obvious differences in median group scores were found between patients assessed at intermediate (mean 3.5 years) and final (mean 10.2 years) follow-up. No infections, fractures, or fixation failures were reported.

No clinical difference in outcomes between inlay and onlay arthroscopic biceps tenodesis techniques during rotator cuff repair

BACKGROUND

Both inlay and onlay arthroscopic biceps tenodesis (ABT) are common procedures performed during rotator cuff repair. The inlay method involves creating a bone socket in the bicipital groove to secure the long head of the biceps tendon using an interference screw. The onlay method utilizes a suture anchor to secure the long head of the biceps tendon on the surface of the bicipital groove. Little is known on the long-term differences in patient-reported outcomes between these 2 techniques. The primary purpose of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes of inlay vs. onlay ABT with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Secondary aims were to evaluate the impact of rotator cuff tear size on outcomes and compare rates of complications between the 2 techniques.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed to identify patients who had an ABT during a full-thickness rotator cuff repair. Any symptom specific to the biceps were noted, including pain and cramping, Popeye deformity, or revision surgery. Complication rates were compared between groups. The visual analog scale pain score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and Veteran's RAND-12 score (VR-12) scores were compared at 2 years. The impact of rotator cuff tear size was analyzed by categorizing into small/medium or large/massive based on operative reports and arthroscopic images.

RESULTS

There were 165 patients identified (106 in the inlay group and 59 in the onlay group). No revision surgeries were performed secondary to the biceps tendon in either group. Eleven patients (10%) in the inlay group complained of biceps pain or cramping compared to 2 patients (3%) in the onlay group (P = .11). One Popeye deformity was noted in each group (P = .67). No significant differences were found between groups for visual analog scale (P = .41), ASES functional (P = .61), ASES index (P = .91), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (P = .09), VR-12 Physical Component Score (P = .77), or VR-12 Mental Component Score (P = .09). Rotator cuff tear size within the groups also did not demonstrate statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

No clinical differences or complications were found at minimum 2-year follow-up between inlay and onlay ABT in patients undergoing rotator cuff repair when controlling for tear size. The clinical relevance suggests either technique is effective and can be based on surgeon preference.

Onlay Versus Inlay Biceps Tenodesis for Long Head of Biceps Tendinopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Proximal biceps tenodesis is a common surgical treatment of tendinosis of the long head of the biceps tendon. Two of the most common techniques incorporate onlay and inlay fixation methods, which can be done arthroscopically or open and in a variety of anatomic locations. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes between onlay versus inlay humeral fixation for biceps tenodesis for long head of the biceps tendon pathology.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Only studies reporting outcomes and complications after onlay and inlay biceps tenodeses were included.

RESULTS

Six studies with a total of 418 patients (252 onlay, 166 inlay) with a mean age of 56.84 years were included. Visual analog pain scale scores, Constant score, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons shoulder score did not differ. "Popeye" deformity was found in 17 patients (7.80%) in the onlay group and in 15 patients (11.28%) in the inlay group (odds ratio, 0.28; P = 0.07). No difference in postoperative cramping or failure rates was found.

CONCLUSION

Both onlay and inlay biceps tenodeses result in improved clinical outcomes and are at low risk of Popeye deformities, with no statistically significant differences between either method. Additional studies are required to assess the clinical significance of these differences.

Current Controversies and Decision-Making in the Management of Biceps Pathologies

»

Biceps tendon pathologies include a spectrum of injuries that range from mild tendinosis to complete tendon rupture.

»

Tendinosis, the most common pathology, occurs more frequently with age and is likely related to chronic degeneration. On the other side of the spectrum of severity lies a rupture of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT), which may be accompanied by injury to the glenoid labrum.

»

Superior labral anterior-posterior (SLAP) tears are frequently associated with biceps pathology. Surgical management for injuries of the bicipital-labral complex includes biceps tenodesis or tenotomy and SLAP repair. A consensus as to which of these procedures is the optimal choice has not been reached, and management may ultimately depend on patient-specific characteristics.

»

Due to the relatively low incidence of distal biceps tendon rupture, agreement on the optimal management strategy has not been reached. Surgical repair, or reconstruction in the case of a chronic rupture, is often chosen. However, nonoperative management has also been utilized in older, less-active patients.

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.

Arthroscopic Biceps Tenodesis Outcomes: A Comparison of Inlay and Onlay Techniques

BACKGROUND

Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis (ABT) high in the groove can be achieved using an inlay or an onlay technique. However, there is little information comparing outcomes between the 2.

PURPOSE

To compare postoperative healing and functional outcomes of ABT high in the groove performed using either an onlay or an inlay technique.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed on patients undergoing ABT at the articular margin (high in the groove) at a single center over a 2-year period. An inlay technique using an interference screw was performed during the first year, followed by an onlay technique using a knotless suture anchor during the second. Tendon healing, elbow flexion strength, functional outcome, and complications were evaluated at a postoperative minimum of 1 year.

RESULTS

A total of 37 patients with inlay and 53 with onlay ABTs were available for follow-up. There was no difference in range of motion, functional outcome scores, or elbow flexion strength between the groups. A postoperative popeye deformity was noted in 27% of patients in the inlay group as compared with 9.4% of the onlay group (P = .028). Four patients (10.8%) in the inlay group required revision surgery (2 of which were biceps tenodesis related) as compared with 0% in the onlay group (P = .015).

CONCLUSION

An onlay technique using a knotless suture anchor for ABT at the top of the articular margin is an acceptable alternative to an inlay technique using an interference screw. The onlay technique was associated with lower rates of postoperative popeye deformity and revision surgery as compared with the inlay technique.

Management of Failed Proximal Biceps Surgery: Clinical Outcomes After Revision to Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis

BACKGROUND

The preferred surgical technique to manage biceps-superior labral pathology is often debated, and rates of revision and persistence of pain vary widely according to surgical technique and patient characteristics.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical and functional outcomes of patients undergoing revision subpectoral tenodesis after failed primary tenodesis or tenotomy of the long head of the biceps.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

All patients undergoing revision biceps management by the senior surgeon between 2006 and 2016 and with a minimum 24-month follow-up were retrospectively identified. Patients being treated with concomitant rotator cuff repair or capsular release were excluded. Patient characteristic variables were recorded. Patient-reported outcomes including the functional score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), visual analog scale (VAS), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons were obtained, and range of motion, strength, and complications were quantified.

RESULTS

In total, 25 patients with revision biceps tenodesis were identified at a mean follow-up of 76.5 ± 31.5 months. The average age was 44.4 ± 14.3 years, and the surgical indications included failure of index suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (56%), subpectoral biceps tenodesis (36%), and patient dissatisfaction after tenotomy (8%). There was a significant improvement in the VAS score (P < .001), SANE (P = .001), SST (P = .035), functional score (P < .001), and forward elevation (P = .028), whereas postoperative strength (P = .440), abduction (P = .100), and external rotation (P = .745) improvement failed to achieve statistical significance after revision surgery. There was no difference in postoperative outcome measures between modes of failures, concomitant procedures, and sex. Twenty-two (88%) patients reported high satisfaction and stated they would have this revision surgery again. The overall complication rate was 48%, with half of these reporting pain of >3 on a scale of 10 and 4% of patients requiring additional surgeries.

CONCLUSION

The current study demonstrates high patient satisfaction (88%) and significant improvement in functional outcomes with revision biceps tenodesis, a mini-open subpectoral technique, after previous failed tenodesis or tenotomy. Although this may be an effective strategy to address failed prior biceps surgery, the potential complication of persistent pain must be emphasized. Patients should be counseled on the high complication rate (48%), with persistent pain being the most common complaint.

Rates and Risk Factors for Revision Open and Arthroscopic Proximal Biceps Tenodesis

BACKGROUND

Biceps tenodesis may be performed for symptomatic tendinopathy or tearing of the long head of the biceps tendon. Biceps tenodesis is also commonly performed as an adjunctive procedure. However, the indications and prevalence of biceps tenodesis have expanded.

PURPOSE

To establish the incidence and risk factors for revision biceps tenodesis.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

The PearlDiver database of Humana patient data was queried for patients undergoing arthroscopic or open biceps tenodesis (Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] 29828 and CPT 23430, respectively) from 2008 through the first quarter of 2017. Patients without a CPT laterality modifier were excluded from analysis. Revision biceps tenodesis was defined as patients who underwent subsequent ipsilateral open or arthroscopic biceps tenodesis. The financial impact of revision biceps tenodesis was also calculated. Multivariate binomial logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors for revision biceps tenodesis, such as patient demographics as well as concomitant procedures and diagnoses. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were calculated, and all statistical comparisons with P < .05 were considered significant.

RESULTS

There were 15,257 patients who underwent biceps tenodesis. Of these, 9274 patients (60.8%) underwent arthroscopic biceps tenodesis, while 5983 (39.2%) underwent open biceps tenodesis. A total of 171 patients (1.8%) and 111 patients (1.9%) required revision biceps tenodesis after arthroscopic and open biceps tenodesis, respectively (P = .5). Male sex (OR, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.04-1.85]; P = .02) was the only independent risk factor for revision biceps tenodesis after the index open biceps tenodesis. After arthroscopic biceps tenodesis, age >45 years (OR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.39-0.89]; P = .01) and concomitant rotator cuff tear (OR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.47-0.71]; P < .001) were independent protective factors for revision biceps tenodesis. The total cost of revision biceps tenodesis after open and arthroscopic biceps tenodesis was US$3427.95 and US$2174.33 per patient, respectively.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference in the revision rate between arthroscopic and open biceps tenodesis. Risk factors for revision surgery included male sex for open biceps tenodesis, while age >45 years and rotator cuff tears were protective factors for arthroscopic biceps tenodesis.

Surgical Management of Proximal Long Head Biceps Tendon Disorders

Disorders of the long head of the biceps tendon can make a significant contribution to shoulder pain and dysfunction. Historically, open biceps tenotomy or a proximal tenodesis of the tendon through a deltopectoral approach was used to manage biceps tendonitis and instability. Recent developments have added additional options. Arthroscopic techniques offer minimally invasive methods to secure the biceps in the suprapectoral region at the appropriate length. An open subpectoral tenodesis provides for simple exposure that secures the tendon just proximal to the musculotendinous junction and eliminates potentially diseased tendon and synovium from the biceps groove. Common fixation methods include the use of interference screws, suture anchors, and button devices. Future developments will likely add modified tenotomy techniques that will minimize the Popeye deformity in low-demand individuals. Simpler, but secure methods of fixation for higher demand patients will minimize the operative time required.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Injuries to the Biceps and Superior Labral Complex in Overhead Athletes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review discusses the diagnostic and treatment challenges presented by injuries to the biceps and superior labral complex.

RECENT FINDINGS

A focused patient history, numerous physical examination maneuvers, and appropriate advanced imaging studies must be utilized to reach an accurate diagnosis. Nonoperative management, even in overhead athletes, has demonstrated relatively good outcomes, while operative outcomes have yielded mixed results. The surgeon must take into account a number of variables when choosing the appropriate surgical procedure: labral repair versus biceps tenodesis. Rehabilitation, either as nonoperative management or as a postoperative protocol, should focus on restoring glenohumeral and scapulothoracic strength, endurance, and full, pain-free range of motion, while correcting any deficiencies in balance or rhythm throughout the overhead motion. Despite the operative treatment challenges that SLAP tears present, with new techniques and proper patient selection, overhead athletes with injuries to the biceps and superior labrum complex can return to sport at a high level.