The effect of biceps procedure on the outcome of rotator cuff reconstruction

Preservation Versus Release of Normal Long Head of Biceps Tendon in Repair of Isolated Stage-1 Supraspinatus Tears: Preservation Leads to Slightly Lower Constant-Murley Scores and More Reoperations

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine whether preserving a normal-appearing long head of the biceps (LHB) tendon leads to better Constant-Murley scores (CMS) than releasing it in patients undergoing arthroscopic repair of an isolated stage-1 supraspinatus tendon tear.

METHODS

Patients (40 to 70 years old) who were undergoing arthroscopic repair of a minor supraspinatus tendon tear and who had a macroscopically normal LHB were randomized to LHB preservation or LHB release during a prospective clinical trial. The surgeon was free to choose whether to perform tenodesis in patients undergoing LHB release. The primary outcome was the involved shoulder's function based on the absolute CMS score at 6 and 24 months. Secondary outcomes included the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder score and Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV). A post-hoc analysis of prospectively collected data was done using 1:1 propensity score matching without replacement. This resulted in 2 age- and sex-matched groups of 95 patients each. Race and ethnicity data were not collected.

RESULTS

At 24 months, the mean CMS was significantly better in the LHB release group (mean and standard deviation, 86.8 ± 8.3) than in the LHB preservation group (82.9 ± 10.0) (p = 0.003), 97% of the patients in the LHB release group and 88% in the LHB preservation group had more than the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the CMS in rotator cuff repair (p = 0.048), 15% in the LHB preservation group and 3% in the LHB release group (p = 0.01) had an absolute CMS below 70, and the ASES was significantly higher in the LHB release group (91.4 ± 19.2) than in the LHB preservation group (83.6 ± 25.0) (p = 0.02). There were 4 reoperations in the LHB preservation group and no reoperations in the LHB release group.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our findings, a macroscopically normal-appearing biceps tendon should be released when treating stage-1 supraspinatus tendon tears.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level II . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The Clinical Outcomes of Arthroscopic Tenotomy versus Tenodesis with Medium-to-Massive Rotator Cuff Tear in the Elderly: A Retrospective Study

Purpose

Shoulder arthroscopic repair of rotator cuff tears with simultaneous treatment of lesions of the long head of the biceps tendon has become increasingly accepted. However, the clinical outcomes between tenotomy and tenodesis remain unclear. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of tenotomy and tenodesis combined with rotator cuff repair in elderly patients with medium-to-massive rotator cuff tears.

Patients and Methods

We conducted a retrospective trial of patients aged > 60 years with medium-to-massive rotator cuff tears who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with tenotomy or tenodesis. This study included 96 patients: 47 in the tenotomy group and 49 in the tenodesis group. At 3 and 6 months after surgery and at the last follow-up, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Constant-Murley score (CS score), anterior shoulder pain (VAS score), elbow flexion strength and supination strength, and complications were recorded.

Results

At 3 months postoperatively, ASES score, CS score and strength of elbow flexion of the tenodesis group were significantly better than those of the tenotomy group. In addition, the VAS score is 4.4 ± 1.4 and 3.3 ± 1.3 in the tenodesis and tenotomy respectively (p = 0.039). At the final follow-up, despite no significant statistical differences in ASES scores, CS scores, VAS scores, and flexion strength between the two groups, the variation in the above items in the tenodesis group was statistically lower than that in the tenotomy group. No difference was observed in the rates of complications and revision between the groups.

Conclusion

For people over 60 years of age with medium to massive rotator cuff tears, postoperative shoulder function of tenodesis is superior to tenotomy, and functional recovery is relatively more stable after tenodesis than after tenotomy.

Outcomes of Biceps Tenotomy Versus Tenodesis During Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: An Analysis of Patients From a Large Multicenter Database

Background:

Studies to date evaluating biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis in the setting of concomitant rotator cuff repair (RCR) have demonstrated relatively equivalent pain and functional outcomes.

Hypothesis:

It was hypothesized that a significant difference could be demonstrated for pain and functional outcome scores comparing biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis in the setting of RCR if the study was adequately powered.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

The Arthrex Surgical Outcomes System database was queried for patients who underwent arthroscopic biceps tenotomy or tenodesis and concomitant RCR between 2013 and 2021; included patients had a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. Outcomes between treatment types were assessed using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder (ASES), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) scores preoperatively and at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively. Results were stratified by age at surgery (3 groups: <55, 55-65, >65 years) and sex.

Results:

Overall, 1936 primary RCRs were included for analysis (1537 biceps tenodesis and 399 biceps tenotomy patients). Patients who underwent tenotomy were older and more likely to be female. A greater proportion of female patients aged <55 years and 55 to 65 years received a biceps tenotomy compared with tenodesis (P = .012 and .026, respectively). All scores were comparable between the treatment types preoperatively and at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively. At 2-year follow-up, patients who received a biceps tenodesis had statistically more favorable ASES, SANE, VAS pain, and VR-12 scores (P ≤ .031); however, the differences did not exceed the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for these measures.

Conclusion:

Our findings indicate that surgeons are more likely to perform a biceps tenotomy in female and older patients. Biceps tenodesis provided improved pain and functional scores compared with tenotomy at 2-year follow-up; however, the benefit did not exceed previously reported MCID for the outcome scores. Both procedures provided improvement in outcomes; thus, the choice of procedure should be a shared decision between the surgeon and patient.

Evaluation of Rotator Cuff Repair With and Without Concomitant Biceps Intervention: A Retrospective Review of Patient Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Biceps tendon pathology is common in patients with rotator cuff tears. Leaving biceps pathology untreated in rotator cuff repairs (RCRs) may lead to suboptimal outcomes.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The purpose was to compare clinical outcomes between patients who underwent isolated RCR versus patients who underwent RCR with concomitant biceps treatment. It was hypothesized that there would be no difference in clinical outcomes between groups.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A total of 244 patients who underwent RCR in 2016 were included. Patient characteristics, presence of concomitant biceps pathology, pre- and postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, rotator cuff failure, revision surgery, and complications were recorded.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between patients who underwent isolated RCR (n = 143) and those who underwent RCR with biceps treatment (n = 101) at 2 years postoperatively in ASES scores (RCR, 81.5; RCR+biceps treatment, 79.5; P = .532), cuff failure rate (5.6% vs 4.0%; P = .760), revision RCR rate (3.5% vs 2.0%; P = .703), or complication rate (11.9% vs 5.0%; P = .102). Furthermore, when comparing concomitant biceps tenotomy (n = 30) versus concomitant biceps tenodesis (n = 71), there were no differences in ASES scores (P = .149), cuff failure rate (P > .999), revision RCR rate (P > .999), or complication rate (P > .999) postoperatively. Finally, when comparing arthroscopic biceps tenodesis (n = 50) versus subpectoral biceps tenodesis (n = 21), there were no differences in ASES scores (P > .592), cuff failure rate (P > .999), revision RCR rate (P = .507), or complication rate (P > .999) 2 years postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Addressing biceps pathology when performing RCR resulted in similar rates of cuff failure, revision RCR, and complications, as well as a similar improvement in patient-reported outcomes when compared with isolated RCR at 2 years postoperatively. Furthermore, when comparing tenotomy versus tenodesis and arthroscopic versus subpectoral tenodesis, comparable outcomes with regard to rate of rotator cuff repair failure, revision RCR, complications, and patient-reported outcomes were found.

Knotted Versus Knotless Medial-Row Transosseous-Equivalent Double-Row Rotator Cuff Repairs Have Similar Clinical and Functional Outcomes

Purpose

To retrospectively investigate the clinical and functional outcomes of patients who underwent knotted medial-row rotator cuff repair (KT-RCR) compared with patients who underwent knotless medial-row rotator cuff repair (KL-RCR).

Methods

A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent double-row transosseous-equivalent rotator cuff repair in 2016 was performed at a single institution with 2-year follow-up. Information regarding demographic characteristics, preoperative tear size (magnetic resonance imaging), surgical variables (including method of suture stabilization), preoperative and postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, and all complications (e.g., cuff failure, adhesive capsulitis, and persistent pain) was compiled.

Results

A total of 189 patients met the inclusion criteria: 72 in the KL-RCR group and 117 in the KT-RCR group. No significant difference in preoperative ASES scores was found between the KL-RCR and KT-RCR groups (48.3 vs 45.4, P = .327). Postoperative ASES scores did not differ between the groups (82.4 for KL-RCR vs 78.8 for KT-RCR, P = .579). We found no significant difference in cuff failure rates after 2 years, determined by magnetic resonance imaging (5.6% for KL-RCR vs 6.1% for KT-RCR, P > .999), or complication rates (11.1% for KL-RCR vs 8.6% for KT-RCR, P = .743).

Conclusions

The knotted approach and knotless approach to double-row rotator cuff repair showed similar outcome scores, cuff failure rates, and complication rates at minimum 2-year follow-up.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective therapeutic comparative trial.

Biceps tenotomy or tenodesis in association with rotator cuff repair: is there an influence on functional results? A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Instability or tears of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) may be present in more than 35% of rotator cuff repairs (RCR).

OBJECTIVE

To compare clinical results from patients undergoing arthroscopic RCR, according to the procedure performed at the LHBT.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Retrospective cohort study designed at the shoulder and elbow clinic of Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital das Clinicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brazil.

METHODS

Functional results among patients were compared using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) scales, according to the LHBT approach adopted: no procedure, tenotomy or tenodesis.

RESULTS

We evaluated 306 shoulders (289 patients): 133 underwent no procedure at the LHBT, 77 tenotomy and 96 tenodesis. The ASES scale at 24 months showed no difference (P = 0.566) between the groups without LHBT procedure (median 90.0; interquartile range, IQR 29), tenotomy (median 90.0; IQR 32.1) or tenodesis (median 94.4; IQR 22.7); nor did the UCLA scale (median 33; IQR 7 versus median 31; IQR 8 versus median 33; IQR 5, respectively, P = 0.054). The groups differed in the preoperative functional assessment according to the ASES and UCLA scale, such that the tenodesis group started from higher values. However, there was no difference in pre and postoperative scores between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Tenodesis or tenotomy of the LHBT, in the sample analyzed, did not influence the clinical results from RCR, as assessed using the ASES and UCLA scales.

Clinical Outcomes of Arthroscopic Tenodesis Versus Tenotomy for Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials and Cohort Studies

Background

Controversy exists concerning whether tenotomy or tenodesis is the optimal surgical treatment option for proximal biceps tendon lesions.

Purpose

To evaluate the clinical outcomes after arthroscopic tenodesis and tenotomy in the treatment of long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) lesions.

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that compared the clinical efficacy of tenotomy with that of tenodesis for LHBT lesions. A standardized data extraction form was predesigned to obtain bibliographic information of the study as well as patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome data. A random-effects model was used to pool quantitative data from the primary outcomes.

Results

A total of 21 eligible studies were separated into 3 methodological groups: (1) 4 RCTs with level 1 evidence, (2) 3 RCTs and 4 prospective cohort studies with level 2 evidence, and (3) 10 retrospective cohort studies with level 3 to 4 evidence. Analysis of the 3 groups demonstrated a significantly higher risk of the Popeye sign after tenotomy versus tenodesis (group 1: risk ratio [RR], 3.29 [95% CI, 1.92-5.49]; group 2: RR, 2.35 [95% CI, 1.43-3.85]; and group 3: RR, 2.57 [95% CI, 1.33-4.98]). Arm cramping pain remained significantly higher after tenotomy only in the retrospective cohort group (RR, 2.17 [95% CI, 1.20-3.95]). The Constant score for tenotomy was significantly worse than that for tenodesis in the prospective cohort group (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.47 [95% CI, -0.73 to -0.21]), as were the forearm supination strength index (SMD, -0.75 [95% CI, -1.28 to -0.21]) and the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) score (SMD, -0.60 [95% CI, -0.94 to -0.27]).

Conclusion

The results demonstrated that compared with tenodesis, tenotomy had a higher risk of a Popeye deformity in all 3 study groups; worse functional outcomes in terms of the Constant score, forearm supination strength index, and SST score according to prospective cohort studies; and a higher incidence of arm cramping pain according to retrospective cohort studies.

Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis for lesions of the long head of the biceps tendon: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Biceps tenotomy and biceps tenodesis are 2 most common surgical procedures for long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) pathology, but debate still exists regarding the choice of treatment. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare clinical results between tenotomy and tenodesis for the treatment of lesions of LHBT. It was hypothesized that there is no difference in outcomes of tenotomy and tenodesis for lesions of LHBT.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of literature published between 1980 and April 2020 was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tenotomy and tenodesis for LHBT lesions were included. The primary outcomes were Constant score and Popeye deformity. The secondary outcomes included the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, muscle strength, cramping pain, and operative time. For primary outcomes, trial sequential analysis (TSA) was conducted to reduce the risk of random errors and the GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations) approach was used to assess the quality of the body of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 9 RCTs were included. In pooled analysis, statistical significance was observed in the Constant score (mean difference [MD], 1.59; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.04-3.14; P = .04), Popeye deformity (risk ratio [RR], 0.33; 95% CI, 0.22-0.49; P < .00001) and operative time (MD, 9.94; 95% CI 8.39-11.50; P < .00001). However, there were no significant differences between the tenodesis and tenotomy in ASES score (P = .71), VAS for pain (P = .79), cumulative elbow flexion strength (P = .85), cumulative elbow supination strength (P = .23), and cramping pain (P = .61) TSA revealed that the results for Constant score was inconclusive.

CONCLUSION

For the treatment of LHBT lesions, with the exception of constant score, there was no significant benefit of tenodesis over tenotomy. Although tenotomy is affected by a higher risk of Popeye sign, it is more timesaving.

Small-incision open distal subpectoral vs. arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis for biceps long head tendon lesions with repair of rotator cuff tears

The curative effect of small-incision open distal subpectoral vs. arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis for lesions in the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) combined with rotator cuff repairs (RCR) has remained controversial. The aim of the present study was to compare the two surgical methods. A total of 71 patients who received surgical treatment for LHBT lesions accompanied by RC tears were analyzed. Following arthroscopic RCR and tendectomy of the affected LHBT, 35 patients underwent small-incision open distal subpectoral tenodesis through a small incision (the subpectoral group), while the remaining 36 patients received arthroscopic proximal tenodesis (the arthroscopic group). The surgery time and intra-operative blood loss were compared between the two groups. In addition, the clinical outcomes were evaluated using scoring systems for the functional assessment of the shoulder joint. The subpectoral group had a shorter surgery time and less intra-operative blood loss than the arthroscopic group (P<0.05). The functional scores of the two groups significantly improved as time passed (P<0.05). The subpectoral group was significantly superior to the arthroscopic group with regard to the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score at 2 weeks post-operatively and visual analog scale score at 2 weeks and 3 months post-operatively (P<0.05). Small-incision open distal subpectoral and arthroscopic proximal tenodesis were demonstrated to effectively improve the function of the shoulder joint and relieve pain caused by LHBT lesions accompanied by RCR. However, small-incision open distal subpectoral tenodesis had the additional advantage of shorter surgery time, less intra-operative bleeding and encouraging early results compared to arthroscopic proximal tenodesis. The study was registered as a clinical trial in the Chinese Trial Registry (no. ChiCTR1800015643).

Magnetic resonance arthrography is insufficiently accurate to diagnose biceps lesions prior to rotator cuff repair

PURPOSE

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy between magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) and arthroscopic examination for the assessment of pathologies of the long head of the biceps (LHB) prior to rotator cuff (RC) repair. The hypothesis was that MRA is suitable to identify biceps instabilities, due to improved visibility of the biceps pulley.

METHODS

Sixty-six patients aged 58.5 ± 17.6 (range, 46-71) scheduled to have RC repair between 2016 and 2017 were prospectively enrolled. MRA images of the LHB were interpreted by one radiologist and two surgeons, then compared to arthroscopic findings. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated by comparing MRA axial readings to arthroscopic assessment in the neutral position (static instability), MRA sagittal readings to arthroscopic assessment in external rotation (dynamic s instability), MRA coronal and axial readings to arthroscopic assessment in the neutral position (tendinopathy).

RESULTS

Among the three observers, the radiologist obtained the highest sensitivity and specificity for MRA, which were respectively: (1) for static instability, 62% (C.I. 35-85) and 77% (C.I. 63-88); (2) for dynamic instability, 50% (C.I. 29-71) and 62% (C.I. 46-77), and (3) for tendinopathy, 49% (C.I. 36-62) and 100% (C.I. 3-100).

CONCLUSIONS

MRA is not suitable for the diagnosis of LHB lesions prior to arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic study, Level I.

A meta-analysis comparing tenotomy or tenodesis for lesions of the long head of the biceps tendon with concomitant reparable rotator cuff tears

Background

The best treatment for lesions of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) with concomitant reparable rotator cuff tears is still controversial. The purpose of the meta-analysis was to compare clinical outcomes of biceps tenotomy and tenodesis for LHBT lesions.

Methods

A literature retrieval was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library from 1979 to March 2018. Comparative studies (level of evidence I or II) comparing tenotomy and tenodesis for LHBT lesions with concomitant reparable rotator cuff tears were included. Risk of bias for all included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool. Clinical outcomes compared were Popeye sign, Constant score, VAS pain score, cramping pain, elbow flexion and forearm supination strength, and re-tear of the rotator cuff.

Results

Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five prospective cohort studies (PCS) with 288 biceps tenotomy patients and 303 biceps tenodesis patients were included in this review. Tenotomy resulted in significantly greater rates of Popeye sign (RR, 2.70 [95% CI, 1.80 to 4.04]; P < 0.01) and a less favorable Constant score (MD, − 1.09 [95% CI, − 1.90 to − 0.28]; P < 0.01) compared to tenodesis. No significant heterogeneity was found between the two groups across all parameters except forearm supination strength.

Conclusions

The current evidence indicates that biceps tenodesis for LHBT lesions with concomitant reparable rotator cuff tears results in decreased rate of Popeye sign and improved Constant score compared to biceps tenotomy.

Trial registration

PROSPERO, CRD42018105504. Registered on 13 August 2018.

Posterior subacromial injections are superior in differentiating a rotator cuff from a biceps pathology: A cadaveric study

Backgroud

the ideal route and accuracy of subacromial injections in shoulder pathologies are often questioned. This study aimed at comparing anterior and posterior injections in terms of subacromial space dye localization and diagnostic accuracy. We hypothesized that posterior injections would prove more accurate.

Methods

lidocaine-dye mix was injected posteriorly and anteriorly in five cadaveric shoulders each. Presence of dye was ascertained at dissection.

Results

All five posterior injections remained confined to the subacromial space. In all five anteriorly injected shoulders, the dye was seen leaking from the subacromial space into bicipital groove.

Conclusions

Varying accuracies of anterior [69-90%] and posterior [56-80%] subacromial injections have been reported. We observed both routes to be equally accurate [100%]. The dye exclusively remained within the subacromial space with posterior injections. This has higher diagnostic value in differentiating subacromial and long head of biceps pathologies. The anterior approach may have a better therapeutic role in combined subacromial and biceps pathologies.

Does bicep pathology affect rotator cuff repair outcomes?

INTRODUCTION

Rotator cuff (RC) tears are common and a frequent cause of dysfunction in the shoulder, especially with progression of age. Biceps pathology occurs concomitantly and its relationship with RC tears has been well described. However, the study of biceps intervention affecting outcomes of RC repair is limited. We aim to study the effect of biceps tenotomy in RC repair after matching for cuff tear size.

METHODS

We collected data of 24 consecutive patients undergoing RC repair and biceps tenotomy and matched them with patients undergoing RC repair only ( n = 24). The groups were matched for age, RC tear size, and presence of subscapularis tears. All patients of this study underwent RC repair under a single surgeon. Patient demographics and outcome measures in the form of range of motion (ROM) pain scores and validated shoulder scores (Constant shoulder score, Oxford score, and University of California Los Angeles shoulder score) were collected preoperative and at predetermined fixed intervals up to 2 years postoperatively. We then compared the two groups using a mixed analysis of variance design so as to identify any possible differences.

RESULTS

Patients from both groups demonstrated significant improvement in ROM, lower pain scores, and improvement in functional outcomes ( p < 0.05). Patients with biceps intervention demonstrated equivalent outcomes postoperatively up to 2 years with no statistical differences ( p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Arthoscopic RC repair is an effective intervention for improving ROM, reducing pain, and improving function. Concomitant biceps procedure did not negatively impede recovery or affect outcomes.

Patient-determined outcomes after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with and without biceps tenodesis utilizing the PITT technique

HYPOTHESIS AND BACKGROUND

The percutaneous intra-articular transtendon technique (PITT) is a simple, rapid, and low-cost method of performing a biceps tenodesis. Few studies exist that examine the patient-determined outcomes of this technique in general or in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) with and without biceps tenodesis. We hypothesized that patients undergoing an isolated arthroscopic RCR would have equivalent outcomes to those undergoing RCRs with PITT biceps tenodesis.

METHODS

We compared preoperative, patient-determined outcomes scores on patients undergoing primary arthroscopic RCR with and without a PITT biceps tenodesis with postoperative scores at a minimum of 2 years. These scores included the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff score (WORC), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and Shoulder Activity Level (SAL). Indication for a concomitant biceps tenodesis was a partial long head biceps tendon tear or biceps instability/subluxation.

RESULTS

A total of 153 patients underwent an isolated RCR and 131 patients underwent RCR with biceps tenodesis (RCRBT). Both groups had improvements in WORC, ASES, SANE, and SST (P < .0001) and deteriorations in the SAL (P ≤ .005). There was no difference in the change in outcome scores between the groups (RCRBT vs. RCR, respectively) for WORC (46 vs. 47; P = .85), ASES (46 vs. 47; P = .82), SANE (53 vs. 51; P = .35), SST (5.8 vs. 5.8; P = .93), and SAL (-0.9 vs. -1.4; P = .46). There was no difference between the groups in complications that required revision surgery (1.5% vs. 1.3%; P = .91).

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic PITT RCRBT is safe and effective with equivalent patient-determined outcomes compared with patients undergoing RCR without biceps tenodesis.

Tenodesis renders better results than tenotomy in repairs of isolated supraspinatus tears with pathologic biceps

BACKGROUND

Many authors recommend systematic biceps tenotomy or tenodesis when repairing rotator cuff tears, regardless of whether the biceps is normal or pathologic. The purpose of this study was to determine whether 10-year outcomes of repairs of isolated supraspinatus tears are influenced by adjuvant biceps tenodesis or tenotomy.

METHODS

Patients who underwent repair of isolated supraspinatus tears were recalled for evaluation at a minimum follow-up of 10 years. A total of 249 patients (51% men) aged 56.7 ± 6.3 years were evaluated clinically (Constant score), of whom 182 were also evaluated using magnetic resonance imaging (Sugaya classification). The biceps was intraoperatively found to be pathologic in 52% of shoulders, of which 39% had a tenotomy and 54% had a tenodesis; it was found to be normal in 48% of shoulders, of which 88% were left intact.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in Constant scores for patients who had normal biceps without adjuvant procedures (77.1 ± 11.7) compared with patients who had pathologic biceps with either tenodesis (79.8 ± 11.5, P = .104) or tenotomy (75.3 ± 10.7, P = .420). However, for patients who had pathologic biceps, Constant scores were significantly better for those with tenodesis compared with those with tenotomy (P = .025). Multivariable regression revealed Constant scores to be significantly lower for women, as well as patients with fatty infiltration of stages 1 and 2, but significantly higher for patients who underwent tenodesis.

CONCLUSION

Adjuvant biceps procedures are not required when repairing isolated supraspinatus tears, unless biceps pathology is observed intraoperatively, for which tenodesis grants better function and strength than tenotomy.

A meta-analysis comparing tenotomy and tenodesis for treating rotator cuff tears combined with long head of the biceps tendon lesions

Purpose

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to assess whether there were differences in the outcomes between tenotomy and tenodesis in treating LHBT lesions combined with rotator cuff repairs.

Methods

Using Medline, Embase, and Cochrane, we searched for articles comparing tenotomy and tenodesis combined with rotator cuff repair which were published before April 2016 with the terms “biceps”, “tenotomy”, “tenodesis”, and “rotator cuff”. The controlled clinical studies that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were assessed for quality of methodology by utilizing the Coleman score.

Results

On the basis of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, ten articles (903 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. The Coleman score ranged between 40 and 89 in the included studies. The results showed that the incidence of the popeye sign (OR, 2.777, P = 0.000) were higher in tenotomy group compared with tenodesis group when concomitant rotator cuff repair. Statistically significant difference in favor of tenodesis was observed for Constant score (SMD, -0.230, P = 0.025). As for the arm cramping pain, patient satisfaction, VAS score, ASES score and UCLA increased score, the strength and the range of motion, there were no significant differences between tenodesis and tenotomy of the LHBT, corresponding to the currently available results in the literature.

Conclusions

Based on this meta-analysis, both tenotomy and tenodesis are effective in pain relief and function improvement in patients with repairable rotator cuff tears. No significant differences in post-operative functional outcome between tenotomy and tenodesis for the treatment of LHBT lesions were observed except for a lower Constant score and higher risk of Popeye deformity in tenotomy.

The Effect of Concomitant Biceps Tenodesis on Reoperation Rates After Rotator Cuff Repair: A Review of a Large Private-Payer Database From 2007 to 2014

PURPOSE

To determine if reoperation rates are higher for patients who underwent isolated rotator cuff repair (RCR) than those who underwent RCR with concomitant biceps tenodesis using a large private-payer database.

METHODS

A national insurance database was queried for patients who underwent arthroscopic RCR between the years 2007 and 2014 (PearlDiver, Warsaw, IN). The Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) 29,827 (arthroscopy, shoulder, surgical; with RCR) identified RCR patients who were subdivided into 3 groups-group 1: RCR without biceps tenodesis; group 2: RCR with concomitant arthroscopic biceps tenodesis (CPT 29827 and 29,828); group 3: RCR with concomitant open biceps tenodesis (CPT 29827 and 23,430). Reoperation rates (revision RCR, subsequent biceps surgeries) and complications at 30 days, 90 days, 6 months, and 1 year were analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression was used to compare reoperations and complications between groups. Rotator cuff tear size, whether the biceps was ruptured and whether a biceps tenotomy was performed, was not available.

RESULTS

Group 1: 27,178 patients. Group 2: 4,810 patients. Group 3: 1,493 patients. More patients underwent concomitant arthroscopic than concomitant open tenodesis (P < .001). A total of 2,509 patients underwent a reoperation for RCR or biceps tenodesis within 1 year after RCR. When adjusted for age, sex, and comorbidities, no significant differences in reoperation rates at 30 days or 90 days among the 3 groups, but significantly more patients who had a tenodesis, required a reoperation compared with those who did not have a tenodesis at 6 months and 1 year (both P < .001). Urinary tract infections were more common in patients who did not have a tenodesis, whereas dislocation, nerve injury, and surgical site infection were more common in tenodesis patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher reoperation rates at 1 year were seen in patients who had concomitant biceps tenodesis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, case-control database review study.

Demographic trends in arthroscopic and open biceps tenodesis across the United States

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate trends in procedures and to report on demographic data of patients undergoing arthroscopic vs. open biceps tenodesis.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a commercially available database (PearlDiver) was conducted to identify cases of arthroscopic and open biceps tenodesis performed between 2007 and 2011 with concurrent diagnoses of commonly associated shoulder disorders. Each record provided the patient's age, gender, and region within the United States, and statistical significance was determined with respect to each of these demographics.

RESULTS

There were 9011 patients who underwent arthroscopic biceps tenodesis and 11,678 patients who underwent open biceps tenodesis between 2007 and 2011. The number of biceps tenodesis cases increased from 2007 to 2011 (2047 to 5832; P = .015). Both arthroscopic and open biceps tenodesis procedures were performed most commonly in the 30- to 59-year-old age group (76.3% and 76.1%; P < .00001). Men underwent arthroscopic or open biceps tenodesis more commonly than women did (66.1% and 71.9%; P < .00001). Rates of both open and arthroscopic biceps tenodesis varied significantly among the Midwest, South, Northeast, and West regions (P = .009; P = .007); 49.8% of arthroscopic and 44.6% of open biceps tenodesis cases were associated with rotator cuff tears, whereas 14.4% of arthroscopic and 16.2% of open cases were associated with biceps tendon disorders.

CONCLUSION

Both arthroscopic and open biceps tenodesis cases increased annually from 2007 to 2011. The majority of biceps tenodesis cases were performed in men aged 30 to 59 years, and the South had the highest overall number of cases. Further studies are required to evaluate the efficacy of these procedures with and without concomitant pathologic processes.