Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Using Dynamic Endobutton Fixation in a Humeral Bone Tunnel With Interference Screw Augmentation

Improvement in long head of biceps function and lower rate of biceps deformities after subpectoral tenodesis with cortical button and interference screw vs. arthroscopic tenotomy: a 4-year follow-up

Background

This study aimed to evaluate clinical, cosmetic, and strength midterm outcomes in arthroscopic biceps tenotomy and subpectoral biceps tenodesis using bicortical endobutton and interference screw.

Methods

In this retrospective study, inclusion criteria were long head of the biceps (LHB) pathologies treated either with tenotomy or an additional tenodesis. Postoperative assessment included Long Head of Biceps Score (LHBS), age-adjusted Constant-Murley Score, and Subjective Shoulder Value. Elbow flexion and forearm supination strength were measured. The presence of Popeye sign, cramps, and tenderness over the bicipital grove was evaluated. Statistical analysis of continuous variables without normal distribution was performed using Mann-Whitney U test. Grouped analysis was performed using 2-way analysis of variance. Binominal data were analyzed using chi-square test.

Results

A total of 73 patients with a mean age of 63.1 ± 9.6 years and a mean follow-up of 4.2 ± 0.5 years were included. Tenotomy was performed in 34 and tenodesis in 39 patients. Tenodesis group displayed a significantly higher LHB score (P = .0006), but no significant differences were detected for the age-adjusted Constant-Murley Score and Subjective Shoulder Value. Tenodesis group showed a significantly lower rate of Popeye deformities (P = .0007) and tenderness over the bicipital groove (P = .004). Patients from the tenotomy group with biceps deformity showed a significantly higher mean contralateral supination strength (P = .002) but no significant difference in contralateral elbow flexion compared with patients without biceps deformity. There was one (1.4%) complication in the tenotomy group (postoperative shoulder stiffness).

Conclusion

Both techniques resulted in comparable outcome scores on preselected patients, with tenodesis leading to better LHB function. Tenodesis did not improve elbow flexion and forearm supination strength beyond the tenotomy; however, it reduced the frequency of biceps deformities and tenderness over the bicipital groove. Patients with a strong contralateral forearm supination strength could be at risk of developing a biceps deformity after tenotomy.

Arthroscopic All-Inside Biceps Tenodesis: Technique and Outcomes

The long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) is a frequent source of disorders and pathology in the shoulder. Significant evidence is available on the management of disorders of the LHBT in the literature, and the LHBT is frequently addressed intraoperatively when involved in shoulder pathology. An all-arthroscopic, intra-articular biceps tenodesis with suture anchor fixation has several advantages that have not been well described previously, and it does not add significant morbidity to arthroscopic surgery to treat the rotator cuff or other sources of pain. Intra-articular LHBT tenodesis in the bicipital groove thus has advantages of less surgical time and a decreased bone footprint.

Biomechanical characterization of unicortical button fixation: a novel technique for proximal subpectoral biceps tenodesis

PURPOSE

Proximal biceps tenodesis is one method for treating biceps-related pain. Tenodesis protects the length-tension relationship of the biceps muscle, maintains strength, and provides a better cosmetic appearance than tenotomy. The purpose of this investigation was to compare the mechanical properties of a unicortical metal button and an interference screw in proximal biceps tenodesis.

METHODS

Six pairs of fresh-frozen shoulders were dissected, leaving the proximal biceps tendon as a free graft. On each pair of shoulders, a biceps tenodesis was performed using an interference screw or a unicortical metal button. The specimens were mounted and a cyclic load (10-60 N) was applied at 1 Hz for 200 cycles, followed by an axial load to failure. The displacement, ultimate load to failure, and mode of failure were recorded.

RESULTS

Displacement in response to cyclic loading was 3.7 ± 2.2 mm for the interference screw and 1.9 ± 1.0 mm for the cortical button (P = 0.03). Load at failure for the interference screw was 191 ± 64 N (stiffness: 24 ± 11 N/mm) and 183 ± 61 N (stiffness: 24 ± 7. N/mm) for the unicortical button (P = n.s. for both cases).

CONCLUSIONS

As a novel technique for subpectoral biceps tenodesis, a unicortical button demonstrated significantly less displacement in response to cyclic loading than the interference screw. The ultimate load to failure and stiffness for the two methods were not different. In this way, a unicortical button may provide a reliable alternative method of fixation with a potentially lower risk of post-operative humeral fracture and a construct that permits early mobilization following biceps tenodesis.

Arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis at the articular margin: evaluation of outcomes, complications, and revision rate

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence of residual pain, outcomes, and the revision rate of arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis high in the groove at the articular margin of the humeral head by interference screw fixation.

METHODS

Seven surgeons pooled data on patients who underwent an arthroscopic biceps tenodesis at the articular margin by interference screw fixation. All patients had a minimum of 50 weeks' follow-up. Preoperative and postoperative patient data including visual analog scale scores (obtained by all surgeons), objective shoulder scores (Simple Shoulder Test and University of California, Los Angeles scores obtained by 2 and 4 surgeons, respectively), and need for revision surgery (obtained by all surgeons) were retrospectively analyzed, the results are reported, and statistical analysis was performed.

RESULTS

After the application of our exclusion criteria, 1,083 patients were included in the analysis. The mean follow-up period was 136 weeks. The overall revision surgery rate for this group was 4.1% (44 of 1,083). Revision for biceps tenodesis-related issues was needed in only 4 cases (for a biceps tenodesis-related revision rate of 0.4%). Pain scores improved from 6.47 preoperatively to 1.08 postoperatively (P < .0001). University of California, Los Angeles scores improved from 14.9 preoperatively to 30.1 postoperatively (P < .0001), and Simple Shoulder Test scores improved from 2.7 preoperatively to 10.2 postoperatively (P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis performed at the articular margin results in a low surgical revision rate, a low rate of residual pain, and significant improvement in objective shoulder outcome scores.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Safety of open suprapectoral and subpectoral biceps tenodesis: an anatomic assessment of risk for neurologic injury

BACKGROUND

Surgical techniques for proximal biceps tenodesis that include penetration of the posterior humeral cortex for fixation may pose risk to the surrounding neurovascular structures.

HYPOTHESIS

The risk of neurologic injury with techniques that involve penetration of the posterior humeral cortex for fixation in proximal biceps tenodesis will increase as the tenodesis site moves proximally from the subpectoral to the suprapectoral location.

METHODS

Proximal biceps tenodesis was performed on 10 cadaveric upper extremities with 3 separate techniques. The proximity of the hardware to the relevant neurovascular structures was measured. The distances between the tenodesis site and the relevant neurovascular structures were measured.

RESULTS

The guide pin was in direct contact with the axillary nerve in 20% of the suprapectoral tenodeses. The distance between the axillary nerve and the tenodesis site was 10.5 ± 5.5 mm for the suprapectoral location, 36.7 ± 11.2 mm in the subpectoral scenario, and 24.1 ± 11.2 mm in the 30° cephalad scenario (P = .003). The distance between the radial nerve and the anterior tenodesis site was 41.3 ± 9.3 mm for the suprapectoral location and 48.0 ± 10.7 mm for the subpectoral location. The distance of the musculocutaneous nerve from the tenodesis site was 28.4 ± 9.2 mm for the suprapectoral location and 37.4 ± 11.2 mm for the subpectoral location.

CONCLUSION

In a cadaveric model of open biceps tenodesis, penetration of the posterior humeral cortex at the suprapectoral location results in proximity to the axillary nerve and should be avoided. Subpectoral bicortical button fixation drilled perpendicular to the axis of the humerus was a uniformly safe location with respect to the axillary nerve.

Biomechanical performance of subpectoral biceps tenodesis: a comparison of interference screw fixation, cortical button fixation, and interference screw diameter

BACKGROUND

Subpectoral biceps tenodesis with interference screw fixation allows reproducible positioning of the tendon to help maintain the length-tension relationship. The aim of our study was to evaluate the role of cortical button fixation in isolation or as an augment to interference screw fixation and to determine if the diameter of the interference screw affected fixation strength.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-two cadaveric shoulders were dissected and randomized to 1 of 4 groups: (1) 7-mm interference screw and cortical button, (2) cortical button alone, (3) 7-mm interference screw, or (4) 8-mm interference screw. Testing was performed on a materials testing system with a 100-N load cycled at 1 Hz for 5000 cycles, followed by an axial load to failure test. Cyclic displacement, ultimate load to failure, and site of failure were recorded for each specimen.

RESULTS

The mean ultimate failure loads were 7-mm interference screw with cortical button augmentation, 237.8 ± 120.4 N; cortical button alone, 99.4 ± 16.9 N; 7-mm interference screw, 275.5 ± 56 N; 8-mm interference screw, 277.1 ± 42.1 N. All specimens failed through tendon failure at the screw-tendon-bone interface.

CONCLUSIONS

The biomechanical performance of subpectoral biceps tenodesis with interference screw fixation was not improved with cortical button augmentation. In addition, cortical button fixation alone yielded a significantly lower ultimate load to failure compared with interference screws. Finally, the biomechanical performance of smaller-diameter interference screws with matching bone tunnels was not affected by interference screw diameter.