Our Totally Intra-Articular "Needle-Anchor" Tenodesis Technique Applied in Isolated Long Head of the Biceps Tendinopathy: Clinical and Functional Results in 60 Patients

Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Biceps Tenodesis for Isolated Biceps Tendinopathy: Results From 23 Patients

INTRODUCTION

Pathology affecting the long head of the biceps tendon (LHB) is a common cause of shoulder pain. When conservative treatment fails to resolve symptoms, surgical treatment is the modality of choice. The literature describes many arthroscopic and open techniques using different implants. However, no consensus exists on which procedure yields the greatest improvement. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis for treating isolated LHB pathology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We present a case series of 23 patients with isolated LHB pathology who were treated with arthroscopic suprapectoral tenodesis between 2016 and 2022. All surgeries were performed by the same senior surgeon, and patients were assessed preoperatively and one year after the procedure, using the simple shoulder test (SST), Constant score (CS), and visual analog scale (VAS) by the senior surgeon. Statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test, with significance defined as p < 0.05.

RESULTS

The CS improved from 68.52 (SD = 1.59) to 98 (SD = 7.1; p < 0.001), the SST improved from 8.78 (SD = 0.998) to 11.21 (SD = 0.42; p < 0.001), and the VAS improved from 8.26 (SD = 0.54) to 0 (SD = 0; p < 0.001) at one-year follow-up. No complications were reported postoperatively or during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis significantly improved outcomes at one-year follow-up and can be considered an effective and safe choice when treating LHB pathology.

How Long Does It Take to Achieve Clinically Significant Outcomes After Isolated Biceps Tenodesis?

Background:

Clinically significant outcomes (CSOs) connect patient-reported outcome measures data to patient-perceived benefit. Although investigators have established threshold values for various CSOs, the timeline to achieve these outcomes after isolated biceps tenodesis (BT) has yet to be defined.

Purpose:

To define the time-dependent nature of minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) achievement after isolated BT.

Study Design:

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES), the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and the Constant-Murley score (CMS) were administered preoperatively and at 6 and 12 months postoperatively to patients undergoing isolated BT between 2014 and 2018 at our institution. Cumulative probabilities for achieving MCID, SCB, and PASS were calculated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Weibull parametric regression evaluated the hazard ratios (HRs) of achieving earlier MCID, SCB, and PASS.

Results:

Overall cohort (N = 190) achievement rates ranged between 77.8% and 83.2% for MCID, between 42.2% and 80.2% for SCB, and between 59.7% and 62.9% for PASS. Median achievement time was 5.3 to 6.1 months for MCID, 5.9 to 6.4 months for SCB, and 6.07 to 6.1 months for PASS. Multivariate Weibull parametric regression identified older age, male sex, higher body mass index, preoperative thyroid disease, smoking history, and higher preoperative CMS as predictors of delayed CSO achievement (HR, 1.01-6.41), whereas normal tendon on arthroscopy, defined as absence of tenosynovitis or tendon tear on arthroscopy, predicted earlier CSO achievement (HR, 0.19-0.46). Location of tenodesis and worker compensation status did not significantly predict the time to achieve CSOs on multivariate analysis.

Conclusion:

After isolated BT, patients can expect to attain CSO by 13 months postoperatively, with most patients achieving this between 5 and 8 months. Patients tend to take longer to achieve PASS than MCID and SCB.

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.

Relationship between the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computer adaptive testing and legacy instruments in patients undergoing isolated biceps tenodesis

HYPOTHESIS

The purpose of this study was to correlate the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computer adaptive testing (CAT) domains with commonly used legacy patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) preoperatively in a population of patients presenting to a tertiary care orthopedic center for biceps and labral pathology.

METHODS

Prospective data were collected on 175 patients scheduled to undergo isolated biceps tenodesis at a tertiary center. Enrollees completed legacy scores (Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey, Short Form 12, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES] Assessment Form, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and Constant-Murley score) and PROMIS CAT questionnaires (Upper Extremity [UE], Pain Interference [PIF], and Depression). In addition, patients were asked to provide an assessment of the strength, function, and pain of the affected shoulder using a custom visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaire. Spearman rank correlations of the PROMIS CAT with legacy measures and the custom VAS were calculated. Floor and ceiling effects were assessed.

RESULTS

The UE CAT yielded moderate correlations with the ASES score (r = 0.57) and the custom VAS strength score (r = 0.50-0.57). The PIF CAT demonstrated moderate correlations with the VAS pain score (r = 0.45) and high-moderate correlations with the ASES score, VR6D score, and UE CAT (r = 0.61-0.66). The Depression CAT demonstrated high-moderate correlations with the mental health legacy measures (r = -0.64 to -0.61). There was a significant relative floor effect for the Depression CAT at a score of 34.2 (19%).

CONCLUSION

The PIF CAT was comparable to the ASES score, the current gold standard. Compared with legacy measures, both the UE CAT and PIF CAT are less burdensome and have few floor or ceiling effects. The PIF CAT may be a viable alternative to describe the physical and psychosocial impact of pain in biceps tenodesis patients.

Biceps tenodesis versus biceps tenotomy for biceps tendinitis without rotator cuff tears

Disorders of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHB) are a well-recognised cause of shoulder pain despite the function of the long head of the biceps remaining poorly understood. There has been a dramatic rise in the number of biceps tenodesis procedures being performed in the last decade. This may partly be attributed to concerns regarding residual cosmetic deformity and pain after biceps tenotomy though there is little evidence to suggest that functional outcomes of tenodesis are superior to biceps tenotomy. Current literature focuses on LHB disorders with concomitant rotator cuff tears. The aim of this review is to discuss the anatomy of the LHB, the pathogenesis of tendinopathy of the LHB, indications of biceps tenodesis and tenotomy and compare the current literature on the functional outcomes of these procedures for LHB disorders in the absence of rotator cuff tears.

Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis for Tenosynovitis of the Long Head of the Biceps in Active Patients Younger Than 45 Years Old

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to assess the outcomes after subpectoral biceps tenodesis (BT) for long head of the biceps (LHB) tenosynovitis in active patients <45 years old.

METHODS

This was an Institutional Review Board-approved, retrospective outcomes study with prospectively collected data. Patients treated with subpectoral BT were included if they met the following criteria: age <45 years, anterior shoulder pain with arthroscopically confirmed LHB tenosynovitis, no concomitant procedures other than debridement and decompression procedures, and minimum 2 years out from surgery. Patients were excluded from analysis if they refused participation. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Short Form-12, Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and pain scores as well as sports participation preoperatively and at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively were obtained. Pre- and postoperative scores were compared using paired samples t-test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

RESULTS

Thirty patients met the inclusion criteria. Two of these patients refused to participate in follow-up and were excluded from analysis. Of the remaining 28 patients (17 male, 11 female; 37.0 ± 8.0 years), minimum 2-year outcomes were available for 24 (13 males, 11 females: 37.7 ± 8.2 years; 85.7%). Mean follow-up was 3.1 years (range, 2.0 to 7.3 years). There were significant improvements in all outcome measures including ASES score (P < .001), with a postoperative mean of 95.8 ± 7.8, visual analog scale "pain today" (P < .001), and pain affecting activities of daily living (P < .001). Seventeen of 20 (85%) patients who answered the question about postoperative sport participation were able to return to sport. Mean patient satisfaction was 9.2/10 (standard deviation, +1.7). There were no postoperative complications such as Popeye deformity or cramping. There were no clinical failures.

CONCLUSIONS

Subpectoral BT is an excellent treatment option for active patients <45 years old with LHB tenosynovitis and chronic anterior shoulder pain, resulting in decreased pain, improved function, high satisfaction, and improved quality of life.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic case series.