Failure rates and clinical outcomes after treatment for long-head biceps brachii tendon pathology: a comparison of three treatment types

Open Biceps Tenodesis and Tenotomy Have Low 30-Day Postoperative Complication Rates

Purpose

To compare 30-day postoperative rates of adverse events, particularly infection rates, between open biceps tenodesis and biceps tenotomy.

Methods

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was filtered using Current Procedural Terminology codes to identify patients undergoing open biceps tenodesis and tenotomy from 2010 to 2021. Patients were divided into cohorts based on procedure type. Propensity score matching was used to account for confounding variables. Statistical analyses were conducted to compare 30-day postoperative outcomes between cohorts, as well as to evaluate secondary risk factors for complications.

Results

Overall, 12,367 patients were included in the study with 11,417 undergoing open biceps tenodesis and 950 undergoing biceps tenotomy. After matching, 1,900 patients were included in the final analysis. The rate of outpatient procedures in the tenodesis cohort was significantly higher than in the tenotomy cohort. Rates of any adverse event (AAE), sepsis, pneumonia, reoperation, and extended length of stay (LOS) were significantly higher in the tenotomy cohort compared with the tenodesis cohort. There was no difference in infection rates or wound dehiscence between the 2 groups. After multivariable analysis, increasing age, longer operative time, and history of bleeding disorders were associated with significantly higher odds of developing AAE.

Conclusions

In this study, we found that tenotomy and open tenodesis are both safe options for treatment of biceps pathology. The overall rate of developing AAE and the rate of postoperative sepsis were higher in the tenotomy cohort. In addition, rates of postoperative infection and wound dehiscence did not vary between the 2 groups. Small differences were additionally observed in rates of pneumonia, return to the operating room, and extended LOS, and these rates were higher in the tenotomy cohort.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective comparative 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.

The Transosseous Cerclage In Situ Technique for Biceps Tenodesis

There are many techniques described for biceps tenodesis that vary by fixation type, location, and open or arthroscopic method. Clinical outcomes are similar regardless of repair technique; therefore, the cost and time of procedures are increasingly points of improvement to practice value-based medicine and deliver cost-effective care. The technique described in this article builds on previous arthroscopic transosseous technical knowledge to yield a cost-effective and efficient clinical method to perform biceps tenodesis in the suprapectoral location without the cost and complications of an implant. In addition, this technique provides 4 methods of tenodesis in series, which serves to decrease the risk of mechanical failure and leverages the robust method of suture cerclage for capture of the biceps.

Single-Portal Proximal Biceps Tenodesis Using an All-Suture Anchor

The long head of the biceps is an important pain generator of the shoulder joint. Pathologies of the long head of the biceps involve superior labrum anterior to posterior lesions, pulley lesions, partial tears of the biceps tendon, biceps tendonitis, and medial biceps subluxation caused by full-thickness subscapularis tendon tears. Treatment of an inflamed or injured long head of the biceps by either tenotomy or tenodesis is often mandatory during shoulder arthroscopy to avoid persisting pain and possible revision procedures. In comparison with a tenotomy of the biceps tendon, a biceps tenodesis preserves the tension, anatomy, and cosmesis of the biceps muscle. The presented technique demonstrates a single portal technique for a proximal biceps tenodesis in the bicipital groove using an all-suture anchor.