Cost comparison of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with arthroscopic vs. open biceps tenodesis

Surgical treatment of long head of biceps pathology: analyzing trends in the United States from 2010 to 2019

Background

The long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) is a common cause of anterior shoulder pain. A symptomatic LHBT is commonly encountered in the setting of a rotator cuff tear. The purpose of this study was to determine trends in the incidence of isolated tenotomy and tenodesis procedures for symptomatic LHBT in the setting of rotator cuff repairs (RCR).

Methods

The MarketScan database was queried from 2010 to 2019 for biceps tenotomy (open) and tenodesis (open and arthroscopic) in the United States. Annual procedure volumes and incidences were calculated using discharge weights and U.S. Census Bureau data, respectively. Further subgroup analysis included age, gender, and region.

Results

Open tenodesis remained the most common procedure in the United States for isolated LHBT management. Its incidence increased by 180% from 2010 to 2019, accounting for 49% of isolated LHBT procedures by 2019. In the setting of RCR, arthroscopic tenodesis was most common, and its incidence grew by 138%. By 2019, arthroscopic tenodesis accounted for 58% of procedures in the setting of RCR, while tenotomy claimed only 2%. The incidence of all procedures increased for the age ≥65 cohort, with a notable 828% increase in the incidence of open tenodesis as an isolated procedure, accounting for 76% of procedures by 2019.

Conclusion

Volumes of procedures aimed to ameliorate LHBT pathology increased from 2010 to 2019. Open tenodesis remained the preferred procedure for isolated LHBT pathology, while arthroscopic tenodesis was preferred in the setting of concomitant RCR. Future research can develop algorithmic approaches to treating biceps pathology.

All Suture Biceps Tenodesis Has Greater Biomechanical Strength Than Metal Button Fixation

Purpose

To evaluate the maximal load to failure, cyclic displacement, stiffness, and modes of failure of onlay subpectoral biceps tenodesis with an intramedullary unicortical metal button (MB) versus an inlay, all-suture Caspari-Weber (CW) technique.

Methods

Sixteen matched paired human cadaveric proximal humeri were randomly allocated for subpectoral BT with either CW or MB using a high-strength suture (N = 16; 8 male, 8 female, mean age = 82.5 years, range 62-99 years). Specimens were tested on a servohydraulic mechanical testing apparatus under cyclic load for 1,000 cycles and then loaded to failure. Maximal load to failure, displacement, construct stiffness, and mode of failure were compared.

Results

There was no significant difference between groups when comparing construct stiffness, creep displacement, or displacement at ultimate load. The maximal load to failure for the CW technique was greater than the unicortical MB (588.36 ± 149.06 N vs 375.83 ± 131.4 N, P = .014).

Conclusions

In this study, the all-suture CW biceps tenodesis technique had a greater maximal load to failure than the onlay unicortical MB technique while having similar construct displacement and stiffness. The CW subpectoral biceps tenodesis may offer a lower cost alternative with a mechanically robust fixation when performing an open subpectoral biceps tenodesis.

Clinical Relevance

This cadaveric biomechanical study can help guide surgeons when selecting a fixation technique for biceps tenodesis.

Depressive and Anxiety Disorders Increase Risk for Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Pain Following Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Biceps Tenodesis

Purpose

To evaluate factors associated with postoperative anterior shoulder pain following arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (ABT) and to determine the clinical impact of postoperative anterior shoulder pain.

Methods

A retrospective study of patients that underwent ABT between 2016 and 2020 was conducted. Groups were categorized by the presence (ASP+) or absence (ASP-) of postoperative anterior shoulder pain. Patient-reported outcomes (American Shoulder and Elbow score [ASES], visual analog scale [VAS] for pain, subjective shoulder value [SSV]), strength, range of motion, and complication rates were analyzed. Differences between continuous and categorical variables were tested with two-sample t-tests and chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests, respectively. Variables collected at different postoperative timepoints were analyzed using mixed models with post hoc comparisons when significant interactions were detected.

Results

A total of 461 (47 ASP+, 414 ASP-) patients were included. A statistically significant lower mean age was observed in the ASP+ group (P < .001). A statistically significant higher prevalence of major depressive disorder (MDD) (P = .03) or any anxiety disorder (P = .002) was observed in the ASP+ group. Prescription medication with psychotropic medications (P = .01) was significantly more prevalent in the ASP+ group. No significant differences were observed in the proportion of individuals reaching the minimal clinical important difference (MCID) for ASES, VAS, or SSV between groups.

Conclusions

A pre-existing diagnosis of major depressive disorder or any anxiety disorder, as well as the use of psychotropic medications was associated with postoperative anterior shoulder pain following ABT. Other factors associated with anterior shoulder pain included younger age, participation in physical therapy before surgery, and lower rate of concomitant rotator cuff repair or subacromial decompression. Although the proportion of individuals reaching MCID did not differ between groups, the presence of anterior shoulder pain after ABT resulted in prolonged recovery, inferior PROs, and a higher incidence of repeat surgical procedures. The decision to perform ABT in patients diagnosed with MDD or anxiety should be carefully considered, given the correlation to postoperative anterior shoulder pain and inferior outcomes.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective case-control study.

The long head of biceps at the shoulder: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

This review aimed to explore the available literature to update our understanding of the long head of biceps (LHB) at the shoulder. Synthesise our findings to identify emergent themes and knowledge gaps to inform future research and management directions.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cinahl, SportDiscus, CENTRAL, and Web of Science were searched from inception to 31st December 2021. Articles were included if they referenced adult participants > 18 years of age and were written in English.

RESULTS

214 articles were included in the final analysis, and results were categorised into six emergent themes: (1) Anatomy - Normal anatomical variation of the biceps from aberrant origins, third and fourth accessory heads, and an absence of the LHB tendon (LHBT) are not necessarily benign, with shoulder pain and instability a commonly reported theme. (2) Function - Bicep's role in glenohumeral elevation and stability in healthy shoulders is minimal. In contrast, LHB has a more significant role in shoulder stability and humeral head depression in subjects with rotator cuff failure or an absent LHBT. (3) Pathology - There is an association between LHB tendinopathy, rotator cuff disease, LHBT instability and occult rotator cuff tears. Early recruitment and hyperactivity of the LHB in subjects with symptomatic rotator cuff tears and instability suggest a potential compensatory role. (4) Assessment - The limited diagnostic utility of special orthopaedic tests in assessing LHBT pathology was a consistent theme. The utility of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound to identify full-thickness tendon tears and instability of the LHBT was moderate to high. However, the utility of clinical tests and imaging may be underestimated due to arthroscopy's limitations in fully visualising the proximal LHBT. (5) Non-Surgical Management - Ultrasound-guided injections into the biceps sheath show greater accuracy and patient outcomes than blinded injections; however, the entry of injectate into the intraarticular glenohumeral joint may have unwanted complications. (6) Surgical management - For the surgical management of biceps pathology with or without rotator cuff pathology, both biceps tenodesis and tenotomy report similar improvements in pain without any significant adverse effect on strength or function. Tenodesis favoured higher overall constant scores and a lower incidence of Popeye deformity and cramping arm pain, with tenotomy trending to be more cost and time effective. For patients with a healthy LHBT, rotator cuff repair with adjunctive tenodesis or tenotomy fails to provide additional clinical improvements compared to rotator cuff repair in isolation.

CONCLUSIONS

The scoping review highlights the variability of biceps anatomy, which is not necessarily benign and suggests a minimal role of the LHB in shoulder elevation and stability in healthy individuals. In contrast, individuals with rotator cuff tears experience proximal humeral migration and demonstrate hyperactivity of the LHB, suggesting a potential compensation role. The observed prevalence of LHBT pathology with rotator cuff tears is well established; however, the cause-and-effect relationship between LHBT pathology and rotator cuff disease is undetermined. The diagnostic utility of clinical tests and imaging to exclude LHBT pathology may be understated due to the limitations of arthroscopy to visualise the proximal LHBT fully. Rehabilitation programs for the LHB are understudied. Similar post-surgical clinical outcomes are observed for tenodesis and tenotomy for biceps and rotator cuff-related shoulder pain. Subjects undergoing biceps tenodesis are less likely to have cramping arm pain and a Popeye deformity than patients undergoing biceps tenotomy. The significance of routine surgical removal of the LHBT and sequelae on rotator cuff tear progression to failure and long-term shoulder function is unknown, and further research is required.

PRE-REGISTRATION

OSF: https://osf.io/erh9m.

"Triple-Fix" Arthroscopic Biceps Tenodesis: Indications and Technique

Pathology of the long head of the bicep tendon is a common cause of anterior shoulder pain and frequently is treated surgically using either tenodesis or tenotomy. Tenodesis often is the preferred technique for younger, more active patients and laborers, especially when cosmesis and preservation of function are clinical priorities. However, the security of the tenodesis varies with fixation methods and techniques, and failure of the tenodesis can have both cosmetic and symptomatic consequences. Traditional arthroscopic tenodesis also can be technically challenging, as it usually requires extra-articular identification of the bicep tendon within the bicipital groove. The arthroscopic surgical technique described is an approach that has been routinely employed by the senior author for approximately 8 years that allows for accurate and reproducible exposure of the biceps tendon within the bicipital groove along with secure, anatomic tenodesis of the long head of the bicep tendon.

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.

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

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