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

Patients six months after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair exhibit increased thoracic kyphosis compared to healthy individuals despite standard rehabilitation protocol

BackgroundShoulder pain is often accompanied by disturbances in spinal posture, such as increased thoracic kyphosis. Moreover, a high prevalence of scapular dyskinesis has been observed in the majority of shoulder pain patients. However, these alterations seen in individuals with shoulder pain have not been thoroughly examined after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCr).ObjectiveTo investigate alterations in spinal alignment and mobility, shoulder range of motion, and scapular dyskinesis (SD), to determine whether differences exist between patients with RCr and healthy individuals.MethodsThe study included 26 participants who had undergone RCr (the RCr group) and 29 healthy individuals (the healthy group). The Spinal Mouse device (IDIAG-M360) was utilized to measure spinal alignment (thoracic kyphosis, lumbar lordosis, sacral-hip angles, and pelvic inclination), and spinal mobility. The study also evaluated the presence of scapular dyskinesia (SD), and shoulder range of motion (ROM) using the observational SD test and a universal goniometer, respectively. All variables were compared between the groups.ResultsThe RCr group had an increased mean thoracic kyphosis compared to the healthy group (p = 0.033). However, no significant differences in spinal mobility were observed between the groups (p > 0.05). The results from the scapular dyskinesia analysis revealed considerable variations between the groups (p = 0.001). Among shoulder ROM variables, only external rotation was reduced in the RCr group (p = 0.003). Further subgroup analysis based on trauma status revealed that individuals with non-traumatic rotator cuff tear exhibited an increased thoracic kyphosis angle (p = 0.037).ConclusionsRCr patients exhibited an increased thoracic kyphosis angle and an increased presence of SD, despite showing similar spinal mobility when compared to healthy individuals. These findings may necessitate further research investigating the effectiveness of thoracic mobilization techniques and targeted strengthening exercises aimed at mitigating the increased thoracic kyphosis angle and SD observed in patients undergoing rehabilitation following RCr.

Biceps tenotomy vs. tenodesis: an ACS-NSQIP analysis of postoperative outcomes and utilization trends

Background

While studies have assessed comparative rates of restoration of shoulder function and alleviation of symptoms, comparative systemic postoperative complication rates between biceps tenotomy and tenodesis have yet to be assessed. The purpose of the present study was to use a national administrative database to perform a comprehensive investigation into 30-day complication rates after biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis, thus providing valuable insights for informed decision-making by clinicians and patients regarding the optimal surgical approach for pathologies of the long head of the biceps tendon.

Methods

The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried to analyze postoperative complication rates and metrics associated with biceps tenotomy and tenodesis. Patient data spanning from 2012 to 2021 was extracted, with relevant variables assessed to identify and compare these two surgical approaches. Adjusted and unadjusted analyses were utilized to analyze patient demographics, comorbidities, operative times, lengths of stay, readmissions, adverse events, and yearly surgical volume, along with trends in usage, across cohorts.

Results

Of 11,527 total patients, 264 (2.29%), 6826 (59.22%), and 4437 (38.49%) underwent tenotomy, tenodesis with open repair, and tenodesis with arthroscopic repair, respectively. Tenotomy operative times ([mean ± SD]: 66.25 ± 44.76 minutes) were shorter than those for open tenodesis (78.83 ± 41.82) and arthroscopic tenodesis (75.98 ± 40.16). Conversely, tenotomy patients had longer hospital days (0.88 ± 4.86 days) relative to open tenodesis (.08 ± 1.55) and arthroscopic tenodesis (.12 ± 2.70). Multivariable logistic regression controlling for demographics and comorbidities demonstrated that patients undergoing tenodesis were less likely to be readmitted (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.17-0.98, P = .050) or sustain serious adverse events (AOR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.13-0.57, P < .001), but equally likely to sustain minor adverse events (AOR: 0.87, CI: 0.21-3.68, P = .850), compared with patients undergoing tenotomy. Lastly, comparing utilization rates from 2012 to 2021 revealed a significant decrease in the proportion of tenotomy (from 6.2% to 1.0%) compared to open tenodesis (from 41.0% to 57.3%) and arthroscopic tenodesis (52.8% to 41.64%; P trend = .001).

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this is the first large national database study investigating postoperative complication rates between the various surgical treatments for pathologies of the long head of the biceps tendon. Our results suggest that tenodesis yields fewer serious adverse events and lower readmission rates than tenotomy. We also found a shorter operative time for tenotomy. These findings support the increased utilization of tenodesis relative to tenotomy in recent years.

Return to Sports and Clinical Results After All-Arthroscopic Biceps Tenodesis Using a 2.7-mm Knotless PEEK Suture Anchor

Background

The long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) is a well-known source of pain in the shoulder, especially in active patients.

Purpose

To evaluate the outcomes and return-to-sports rate after all-arthroscopic suprapectoral tenodesis of the LHBT using a small knotless anchor.

Study Design

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

In this retrospective study, 27 patients-who underwent all-arthroscopic tenodesis of the LHBT using a 2.7-mm knotless polyether ether ketone anchor-were evaluated. Sports activities, the return-to-sports rate, and other sports-related parameters (eg, pain during sports, level of sports) were examined. Sports-related data, the Constant score with isometric force (at 90° of abduction in the scapular plane), the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) score, the visual analog scale (VAS) score for satisfaction, range of motion, and the presence of a Popeye deformity were assessed at a mean follow-up of 15.3 ± 8.7 months. The data were initially analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Results

The postoperative ASES, Constant, and SST scores were 81.61, 85.74 and 8.85, respectively. Of the 27 patients, 4 patients (14.8%) showed a Popeye deformity. Preoperatively, 25 patients (92.6%) participated regularly in some type of sports activity. All 25 patients (100.0%) were able to return to sports activities after surgery. 24 (96.0%) returned to the same level preoperatively, with 88.0% (22/25) within 6 months. Patient satisfaction with the outcome was high (VAS score: 2.15 ± 2.78). Neither bicipital groove pain nor cramping was reported. There were no signs of osteolytic bone around the anchor or a fracture of the humeral bone.

Conclusion

Our clinical results after using a 2.7-mm knotless anchor for LHBT tenodesis as well as the return-to-sports rate were satisfying. Using an anchor this size can lower the risk of cortical bone damage and therefore the risk of fractures of the humeral head while still enabling patients to perform at a high level.

Biceps Tenodesis Better Improves the Shoulder Function Compared with Tenotomy for Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Lesions: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

Surgical options for long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) lesions include tenotomy and tenodesis. This study aims to determine the optimal surgical strategy for LHBT lesions with updated evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

Literature was retrieved from PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Web of Science on 12 January 2022. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical outcomes of tenotomy and tenodesis were pooled in the meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs with 787 cases met the inclusion criteria, and were included in the meta-analysis. Constant scores (MD, -1.24; p = 0.001), improvement of Constant scores (MD, -1.54; p = 0.04), Simple Shoulder Test (SST) scores (MD, -0.73; p = 0.03) and improvement of SST (p < 0.05) were significantly better in patients with tenodesis. Tenotomy was associated with higher rates of Popeye deformity (OR, 3.34; p < 0.001) and cramping pain (OR, 3.36; p = 0.008]. No significant differences were noticed between tenotomy and tenodesis regarding pain (p = 0.59), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score (p = 0.42) and its improvement (p = 0.91), elbow flexion strength (p = 0.38), forearm supination strength (p = 0.68) and range of motion of shoulder external rotation (p = 0.62). Subgroup analyses showed higher Constant scores in all tenodesis types and significantly larger improvement of Constant scores regarding intracuff tenodesis (MD, -5.87; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

According to the analyses of RCTs, tenodesis better improves shoulder function in terms of Constant scores and SST scores, and reduces the risk of Popeye deformity and cramping bicipital pain. Intracuff tenodesis might offer the best shoulder function as measured with Constant scores. However, tenotomy and tenodesis provide similar satisfactory results for pain relief, ASES score, biceps strength and shoulder range of motion.

Clinical effectiveness of tenotomy versus tenodesis for long head of biceps pathology: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The comparative clinical effectiveness of common surgical techniques to address long head of biceps (LHB) pathology is unclear. We synthesised the evidence to compare the clinical effectiveness of tenotomy versus tenodesis.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

DATA SOURCES

EMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library of randomised controlled trials were searched through 31 October 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials, reporting patient reported outcome measures, comparing LHB tenotomy with tenodesis for LHB pathology, with or without concomitant rotator cuff pathology. Studies including patients treated for superior labral anterior-posterior tears were excluded. No language limits were employed. All publications from database inception to 31 October 2021 were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Screening was performed by two authors independently. A third author reviewed the article, where consensus for inclusion was required. Data were extracted by two authors. Data were synthesised using RevMan. Inverse variance statistics and a random effects model were used.

RESULTS

860 patients from 11 RCTs (426 tenotomy vs 434 tenodesis) were included. Pooled analysis of patient-reported functional outcome measures data demonstrated comparable outcomes (n=10 studies; 403 tenotomy vs 416 tenodesis; standardised mean difference (SMD): 0.14, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.32, p=0.13). There was no significant difference for pain (Visual Analogue Scale) (n=8 studies; 345 tenotomy vs 350 tenodesis; MD: -0.11, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.06, p=0.21). Tenodesis resulted in a lower rate of Popeye deformity (n=10 studies; 401 tenotomy vs 410 tenodesis; OR: 0.29, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.45, p<0.00001). Tenotomy demonstrated shorter operative time (n=4 studies; 204 tenotomy vs 201 tenodesis; MD 15.2, 95% CI 1.06 to 29.36, p<0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

Aside from a lower rate of cosmetic deformity, tenodesis yielded no significant clinical benefit to tenotomy for addressing LHB pathology.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020198658.

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.

Tenodesis yields better functional results than tenotomy in long head of the biceps tendon operations-a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pathology of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) is a common disorder affecting muscle function and causing considerable pain for the patient. The literature on the two surgical treatment methods (tenotomy and tenodesis) is controversial; therefore, our aim was to compare the results of these interventions.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis using the following strategy: (P) patients with LHBT pathology, (I) tenodesis, (C) tenotomy, (O) elbow flexion and forearm supination strength, pain assessed on the ten-point Visual Analog Scale (VAS), bicipital cramping pain, Constant, ASES, and SST score, Popeye deformity, and operative time. We included only randomized clinical trials. We searched five databases. During statistical analysis, odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively, using the Bayesian method with random effect model.

RESULTS

We included 11 studies in the systematic review, nine of these were eligible for the meta-analysis, containing data about 572 patients (279 in the tenodesis, 293 in the tenotomy group). Our analysis concluded that tenodesis is more beneficial considering 12-month elbow flexion strength (WMD: 3.67 kg; p = 0.006), 12-month forearm supination strength (WMD: 0.36 kg; p = 0.012), and 24-month Popeye deformity (OR: 0.19; p < 0.001), whereas tenotomy was associated with decreased 3-month pain scores on VAS (WMD: 0.99; p < 0.001). We did not find significant difference among the other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Tenodesis yields better results in terms of biceps function and is non-inferior regarding long-term pain, while tenotomy is associated with earlier pain relief.

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.

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.

Improvement in scapular dyskinesis after rotator cuff repair and subacromial decompression

PURPOSE

To investigate the incidence of scapular dyskinesis (SD) in patients with rotator cuff tears using pre- and postoperative 3D computed tomography, analyze the changes in scapular kinematics that occur after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, and identify the contributing clinical factors.

METHODS

Thirty-five patients (mean age, 62.5 ± 8.4 years) were included. Four scapular angles (upward rotation, internal rotation, protraction, and posterior tilt) were measured. The patients were categorized into three pre-existing SD types according to the difference in measured scapular angles between the affected and unaffected sides (type 1 SD, posterior tilt angle difference <  - 5°; type 2 SD, internal rotation angle difference > 5°; and type 3 SD, upward rotation angle difference > 5°). The prevalence, factors influencing SD, and outcomes were compared between the improved and sustained SD groups.

RESULTS

Twenty three of the 35 patients (65.7%) with rotator cuff tears had SD (type 1, 11; type 2, six; type 3, six). Of the 23 preoperative SD patients, 12 (52.1%) showed improved SD postoperatively. Most of the patients with improved SD (9/12) had type 1 SD (p = 0.021) and a significantly improved posterior tilt angle (p = 0.043). The improvement in SD was correlated with a higher range of motion of forward flexion and higher Constant scores (all p < 0.05). No healing failure occurred in the improved SD group (p = 0.037).

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of SD was high in patients with degenerative rotator cuff tears. More than half of the SD cases, especially type 1 SD, improved postoperatively. SD recovery correlated with better function and successful rotator cuff healing.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Long head of biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare tenotomy versus tenodesis for the treatment of long head of the biceps tendon pathologies. The primary outcome was the shoulder functional outcome. The secondary outcomes consisted of postoperative pain, elbow flexion and forearm supination strengths and postoperative complications.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, Google Scholar and Web of Science were searched until April 2020. Included studies were randomized controlled trials with a minimum 12 months' follow-up.

RESULTS

Both treatments had similar improvement on the Constant-Murley score at 6 months and 12 months. However, tenotomy had a significantly lower Constant-Murley score at two years with a mean difference of -1.13 (95% confidence interval -1.9, -0.35). Furthermore, tenotomy had a risk ratio of 2.46 (95% confidence interval 1.66, 3.64) for developing Popeye's deformity. No significant difference was detected in other functional outcomes, pain, or elbow flexion and forearm strength indices.

DISCUSSION

Tenodesis and tenotomy are both well-established techniques that similarly yield satisfactory outcomes. Despite that tenodesis had a statistically significant better Constant-Murley score at two years, this was clinically irrelevant. With the current evidence, we recommend either technique for the management of the long head of the biceps tendon pathologies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, Level II.

Tenotomy or Tenodesis for Tendinopathy of the Long Head of the Biceps Brachii: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Purpose

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to provide an up-to-date comparison of clinical outcomes of tenotomy and tenodesis in the surgical treatment of long head of the biceps brachii (LHB) tendinopathy.

Methods

A literature search was conducted in EMBASE, Pubmed/Medline and the Cochrane database from January 2000 to May 2020. All studies comparing clinical outcomes between LHB tenotomy and tenodesis were included. Quality was assessed using the Coleman score.

Results

We included 25 studies (8 randomized studies) comprising 2,191 patients undergoing LHB tenotomy or tenodesis, with or without concomitant shoulder procedures (mainly rotator cuff repairs). The Coleman score ranged from 29 to 97 for all studies. When comparing tenodesis and tenotomy in randomized studies, no clinically relevant differences were found in the Constant score (mean difference, 0.9 points), the American Shoulder and Elbow Society Score (mean difference, 1.1 points), shoulder pain (mean difference in visual analogue scale, -0.3 points), elbow flexion strength loss (mean difference, 0%), or forearm supination strength (mean difference, 3%). A Popeye deformity (odds ratio, 0.32) was less commonly seen in patients treated with tenodesis (9% vs 23%).

Conclusion

In our meta-analysis, a Popeye deformity was more frequently observed in patients treated with tenotomy. Based on a substantial number of studies, there is no evidence-based benefit of LHB tenodesis over tenotomy in terms of shoulder function, shoulder pain or biceps-related strength. It is unclear whether LHB tenodesis is of benefit in specific patient groups such as younger individuals.

Level of evidence

Level III, systematic review of level III or higher studies.

The 360 Double Lasso Loop for Biceps Tenodesis: Tips and Tricks

The management of the intra-articular portion of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHB) is a recurring topic in every discussion about shoulder pain. In massive rotator cuff tears or in tears of the superior third of the subscapularis tendon, our approach is to systematically perform a tenodesis of the LHB. In this Technical Note, we present our arthroscopic technique for LHB tenodesis at the articular margin of the humeral head using a single anchor and a 360 double lasso loop. This technique guaranties a strong and efficient fixation of the biceps tendon and is reproducible when following the steps and tips and tricks outlined herein.

Does Biceps Tenotomy or Tenodesis Have Better Results After Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although tenotomy and tenodesis are frequently used for long head of the biceps tendon lesions, controversies remain as to which technique is superior regarding pain, functionality, complications, and cosmetic appearance.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) For long head of biceps tendon lesions, does tenotomy or tenodesis result in greater improvements in VAS score for pain? (2) Which approach has superior results when evaluating function outcome (Constant) scores? (3) Does tenotomy or tenodesis have fewer complications? (4) Does tenotomy or tenodesis result in better cosmesis (Popeye sign)?

METHODS

A systematic review was performed in the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Literatura Latino Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS) using the keywords "long head of the biceps tendon," "biceps tenodesis," and "tenotomy." We completed the search in June 2020. The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials and quasirandomized controlled trials that investigated tenodesis and tenotomy with no language restriction and evaluation of adult patients who presented with a long head of the biceps tendon lesion, associated with other lesions or not, without previous shoulder surgeries and who had no response to nonoperative treatment. The initial search yielded 239 studies, 40 of which were duplicates. We assessed the titles and abstracts of 199 articles and excluded all studies that were not randomized controlled trials (literature reviews) or that compared different techniques. We assessed the full text of 14 articles and excluded the ones that were protocols and cohort studies. We evaluated the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. We included eight studies in this systematic review and meta-analysis, with a total of 615 participants, 306 of whom were treated with tenotomy and 309 with tenodesis. The median duration of follow-up was 2 years. Overall, the included studies had a low risk of bias. The complications evaluated were adhesive capsulitis, biceps brachii tear, cramps, and a subsequent second surgical procedure. We used a random model in this meta-analysis so that we could generalize the results beyond the included studies. In this study, we only reported differences between the groups if they were both statistically valid and larger than the minimum clinically important difference (MCID).

RESULTS

Comparing tenotomy and tenodesis, we observed no difference between the groups regarding pain in the long term (mean difference 0.25 [95% confidence interval -0.29 to 0.80]; p = 0.36). There was no difference in Constant score in the long-term (mean difference -1.45 [95% CI -2.96 to 0.06]; p = 0.06). There were no differences when evaluating for major complications (odds ratio 1.37 [95% CI 0.29 to 6.56]; p = 0.70). There were not enough papers evaluating adhesive capsulitis, cramping, and risk of revision surgery. Popeye sign was more frequent in the tenotomy group than in the tenodesis group (OR 4.70 [95% CI 2.71 to 8.17]; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review demonstrated that tenotomy and tenodesis offer satisfactory treatment for long head of the biceps tendon lesions. In terms of pain improvement and Constant score, there was no difference between the techniques, but patients undergoing tenotomy have worse cosmetic results. Therefore, surgeons should choose the technique based on their skills and the patient's expectations of surgery, such as cosmesis and time to recovery. More studies are needed to evaluate complications such as adhesive capsulitis and cramping, as well as to compare duration of surgery and recovery time for each technique.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, therapeutic study.

Long Head of Biceps Tenotomy Is Not Inferior to Suprapectoral Tenodesis in Arthroscopic Repair of Nontraumatic Rotator Cuff Tears: A Multicenter, Non-inferiority, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

To determine if long head of the biceps (LHB) tenotomy is not inferior to suprapectoral LHB tenodesis when performed in conjunction with arthroscopic repair of small- to medium-sized nontraumatic rotator cuff tears.

METHODS

This multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority trial recruited 100 participants older than 50 years who had a supraspinatus and/or infraspinatus tear sagittally smaller than 3 cm and arthroscopically confirmed LHB pathology. During arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, we randomized 48 patients to undergo suprapectoral LHB tenodesis and 52 patients to undergo LHB tenotomy. Data were collected preoperatively and at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 1 year postoperatively. The primary outcome was non-inferiority of the Constant-Murley score (CMS) at 1-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes included the Dutch Oxford Shoulder Score; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire; Popeye deformity; elbow flexion strength index; arm cramping pain; and quality of life (EQ-5D score). The integrity of the rotator cuff repair was assessed with magnetic resonance imaging. Differences between intervention groups were analyzed by mixed modeling.

RESULTS

The mean CMS in the LHB tenotomy group improved from 44 (95% confidence interval [CI], 39-48) to 73 (95% CI, 68-79). In patients with LHB tenodesis, the mean CMS improved from 42 (95% CI, 37-48) to 78 (95% CI, 74-82). The difference between groups at 1-year follow-up was 4.8 (97.5% CI, -∞ to 11.4), with a P value for non-inferiority of .06. The secondary outcomes also improved over time, with no remarkable differences between groups. A Popeye deformity occurred in 33% of tenodesis patients and 47% of tenotomy patients (P = .17). Tenotomy was performed with a shorter operative time (73 minutes vs 82 minutes, P = .03). Magnetic resonance imaging showed a recurrent rotator cuff tear in 20% of all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Although statistically "inconclusive" regarding non-inferiority of the CMS at 1-year follow-up, any observed differences between patients with LHB tenotomy and those with LHB tenodesis in all outcome scores were small.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, randomized controlled trial and treatment study.

The Popeye sign: a doctor's and not a patient's problem

BACKGROUND

The Popeye sign is a frequently reported finding following long head of the biceps (LHB) surgery and may be more often detected by doctors than by patients. This study investigates agreement between patients and doctors regarding the presence of a Popeye sign following LHB surgery.

METHOD

This interobserver study investigates agreement between patients and consulting physicians with regard to assessment of a Popeye sign in patients following LHB surgery. Furthermore, this was compared with assessments by non-consulting physicians (observers) using digital photographs of the operated arm, taken both preoperatively and postoperatively. Data about gender, age, and body mass index (BMI) were collected to investigate their role in doctor's reporting of a Popeye sign. Patient's dissatisfaction with a Popeye sign in the operated arm was evaluated as well.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven patients (mean age 61 ± 6.0 years, 62% male) underwent LHB surgery. A Popeye sign was reported by 2 patients (2%) as opposed to 32 cases (40%) by consulting physicians, of which only 1 case was in agreement. Krippendorff's alpha (Kalpha) for agreement between observers for preoperative photographs was 0.074 (95% CI -0.277, 0.382) and 0.495 (95% CI 0.317, 0.659) for postoperative cases. Kalpha between observers and consulting physicians for pre- and postoperative cases were 0.033 (95% CI -970, 0.642) and 0.499 (95% CI 0.265, 0.699), respectively. Phi coefficient analysis showed a moderate, statistically significant correlation between male sex and Popeye sign identification. Rank-biserial calculation revealed negligible correlation between BMI and age with regard to detecting a Popeye sign by both consulting physicians and observers. Dissatisfaction about swelling in the upper arm was reported in 1 case, though in a location that did not correspond to the location of a Popeye sign.

CONCLUSION

The Popeye sign is more often identified by doctors than by patients after undergoing LHB surgery. BMI and age are not related to the detection of a Popeye sign, but sex is moderately correlated. Together with the low percentage of dissatisfaction of patients with this swelling, this signifies that a Popeye sign seems to be a doctor's rather than a patient's problem.

A meta-analysis of level I evidence comparing tenotomy vs tenodesis in the management of long head of biceps pathology

BACKGROUND

The ideal surgical treatment of long head of biceps pathology is unclear. This review evaluates Level I studies comparing tenotomy and tenodesis for the management of long head of biceps pathology.

METHODS

Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from database inception though April 17, 2020. Clinical outcomes including Constant-Murley Shoulder Outcome Score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) shoulder score, pain on visual analog scale, postoperative strength, and Popeye deformity were evaluated. Dichotomous outcomes were pooled into relative risk ratios whereas continuous outcomes were pooled into weighted mean differences using random effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 5 studies (227 tenotomy and 227 tenodesis patients) met the final inclusion criteria. Postoperative improvement across all outcomes was observed regardless of surgical treatment. Pooled analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference for Constant-Murley Shoulder Outcome Score, ASES, pain, or flexion strength. Tenodesis was superior to tenotomy in reducing the risk of Popeye deformity (relative risk ratio 3.07, confidence interval 1.87, 5.02; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Tenotomy and tenodesis of the long head of the biceps results in comparable postoperative clinical and functional outcomes. Tenodesis is superior to tenotomy in preventing Popeye deformity postoperatively.

Biceps tenodesis versus tenotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of level I randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Biceps tenodesis and tenotomy are 2 surgical treatment options for relief of long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) pathology and superior labrum anterior-to-posterior (SLAP) tears. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the clinical outcomes and complications of biceps tenodesis and tenotomy for the treatment of LHBT or SLAP pathology during shoulder arthroscopy.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify level I randomized controlled trials that compared the clinical outcomes of biceps tenodesis vs. tenotomy. The search phrase used was as follows: biceps tenodesis tenotomy randomized. Patients were assessed based on the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, visual analog scale score for pain, and Constant-Murley score, as well as postoperative range of motion, strength, and cosmetic deformity.

RESULTS

Five studies (all level I) met the inclusion criteria, including 236 patients undergoing biceps tenodesis (mean age, 60.3 years) and 232 patients undergoing biceps tenotomy (mean age, 59.7 years). The mean follow-up period was 23.0 months. Overall, 6.8% of tenodesis patients experienced cosmetic deformity at latest follow-up compared with 23.3% of tenotomy patients (P < .001). No differences in Constant-Murley, visual analog scale, or American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores were found between groups in any study, and of all the studies evaluating strength and range of motion at latest follow-up, only 1 found a significant difference between groups, in which tenodesis patients demonstrated significantly increased forearm supination strength (P = .02). One study found tenodesis patients to experience significantly more biceps cramping at 6-month follow-up compared with tenotomy patients (P = .043), although no differences in complication rates at latest follow-up were found in any study.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing treatment for LHBT or SLAP pathology with either biceps tenodesis or tenotomy can be expected to experience similar improvements in patient-reported and functional outcomes. There is an increased rate of cosmetic deformity in patients undergoing biceps tenotomy compared with tenodesis.

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.

Clinical Effectiveness of Various Surgical Procedures Addressing Long Head of Biceps Pathology: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

The long head of biceps tendon is a common source of anterior shoulder pain and impaired function. Multiple surgical procedures are available as treatment options, but the optimal procedure is not known. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to review the literature to assess the clinical effectiveness of various surgical procedures to treat pain arising from the long head of biceps.

Methods

The study protocol was designed and registered prospectively on PROSPERO (International prospective register for systematic reviews). Electronic databases used for the literature search will include MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and The Cochrane Library. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating surgical procedures on the long head of biceps will be included. Our primary outcome is any functional patient-reported outcome measure related to the shoulder. Secondary outcomes will include the rate of 'Popeye' deformity, the rate of biceps cramping pain, the rate of complications, objective measurements of strength testing such as dynamometer, and other patient-reported outcome measures not specific to the shoulder such as the Visual-Analog Scale (VAS) for pain. Methodological quality of included studies will be assessed using The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 and the Jadad score. Inconsistency and bias across included studies will be assessed statistically. Comparable outcome data will be pooled and analysed quantitatively or qualitatively as appropriate.

Ethics and dissemination

No ethical clearances required for this study. We plan to publish this systematic review and meta-analysis in a peer-reviewed journal. It will also be presented at various national and international conferences.

Highlights

Evaluating the clinical effectiveness of surgical procedures for long head of biceps pathology.Randomised controlled trials.Biceps tenodesis and biceps tenotomy.Systematic review compliant with the PRISMA guideline.

The Impact of Smoking on Clinical Results Following the Rotator Cuff and Biceps Tendon Complex Arthroscopic Surgery

The purpose of this study was to investigate the association of smoking and functional outcomes after arthroscopic treatment of complex shoulder injuries: rotator cuff tears (RCTs) with biceps tendon (LHBT) tears. This retrospective case-control study has been conducted on a cohort of patients who underwent shoulder arthroscopy between 2015 and 2017 due to complex injury treatment. The outcomes were assessed using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score (ASES), the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) Shoulder Score, need for non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) consumption and the visual analog scale (VAS). Complications and changes in smoking status were also noted. A cohort of 59 patients underwent shoulder arthroscopy, due to complex LHBT pathology and RCTs, and were enrolled in the final follow-up examination; with mean duration of 26.03 months. According to smoking status, 27 of patients were classified as smokers, and the remaining 32 were non-smokers. In the examined cohort, 36 patients underwent the LHBT tenotomy and 23 tenodesis. We observed a relationship between smoking status and distribution of various RCTs (p < 0.0001). The mean postoperative ASES and UCLA scores were 80.81 and 30.18 in the smoker's group and 84.06 and 30.93 in the non-smoker's group, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in pre/postoperative ASES and postoperative UCLA scores between smokers and non-smokers (p > 0.05). The VAS was significantly lower in the non-smokers' group (p = 0.0021). Multi-tendon injuries of the shoulder are a serious challenge for surgeons, and to obtain an excellent functional outcome, we need to limit the negative risk factors, including smoking. Furthermore, there is a significant association between smoking and the occurrence of massive rotator cuff tears, and the pain level measured by the VAS. Simultaneous surgical treatment of RC and LHBT lesions in the smoker population allowed us to obtain the functional outcomes approximated to non-smokers in the long-term follow-up. Of course, we cannot assert that smoking is the real cause of all complications, however, we may assume that this is a very important, negative factor in shoulder arthroscopy.

The Loop Tenodesis Procedure-From Biomechanics to First Clinical Results

(1) Introduction: Several surgical therapy options for the treatment of pathologies of the long biceps tendon (LHB) have been established. However, tenotomy, as well as established tenodesis techniques, has disadvantages, such as cosmetic deformities, functional impairments and residual shoulder pain. This study presents the first clinical and structural results of the recently introduced loop tenodesis procedure for the LHB, developed to overcome these issues. (2) Methods: 37 patients (11 women, 26 men, mean age 52 years), who underwent loop tenodesis of the LHB were examined six months after surgery. For the clinical evaluation the Constant score, as well as the LHB score, were used, complemented by elbow flexion and supination strength measurements. The integrity of the tenodesis construct was evaluated indirectly by sonographic detection of the LHB in the bicipital groove. (3) Results: Both, the overall Constant score as well as the LHB score showed significant improvements six months postoperatively, as compared to the preoperative value. Fourteen patients (38%) presented an examiner-dependent upper arm deformity, although only five patients (13%) reported subjective cosmetic deformities. Both, flexion and supination strength were preserved compared to the preoperative level. In 35 patients (95%), the tenodesis in the bicipital groove was proofed sonographically. (4) Conclusion: The loop tenodesis of the LHB provides good-to-excellent overall clinical results after a short-term follow-up of six month. The incidence of cosmetic deformities was inferior compared to conventional therapy options (tenotomy and anchor tenodesis).

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.

Implantable Subacromial Balloon Spacers in Patients With Massive Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tears: A Systematic Review of Clinical, Biomechanical, and Financial Implications

Purpose

To determine the clinical, biomechanical, and financial impact of the use of subacromial balloon spacers in the surgical management of massive, irreparable rotator cuff tears (RCTs).

Methods

All studies assessing the use of implantable subacromial balloon spacers for management of massive, irreparable RCTs were systematically searched. Risk of bias was assessed using Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria. Data extraction and analysis was performed for pain and function scores, shoulder range of motion (ROM), glenohumeral contact pressure and vertical migration of humeral head, and cost. Subjective synthesis was performed with forest plots when outcomes were reported in 3 or more studies.

Results

In total, 19 studies met inclusion criteria for analysis; 337 patients (mean age 68 years) had 343 subacromial balloon spacer implantations. Throughout a mean follow-up of 33 months, there was significant improvement in the Total Constant Score (preoperative: 22.5-41.8; postoperative: 51.4-72.3), Oxford Shoulder Score (preoperative: 21.3-26; postoperative: 34.39-48.2), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (preoperative: 24.5-59.1; postoperative: 72.5-85.7), and shoulder ROM parameters. Subacromial balloon spacer placement resisted superior humeral head migration (range of preoperative to postoperative difference: 2.8-6.2 mm) and decreased peak subacromial pressure during shoulder ROM.

Conclusions

Existing literature of subacromial balloon spacers has a high risk of bias, lack of appropriate control, and low levels of evidence. A qualitative synthesis indicates that subacromial balloon spacer implantation in patients with massive irreparable RCTs is cost-effective and leads to improved function (Total Constant Score and Oxford Shoulder Score) and ROM. In cadaveric studies, subacromial balloon spacers resist superior humeral head migration and reduce subacromial pressure. The theoretical risk of biodegradation of the balloon spacer has not been substantiated in study of up to 5-years follow-up, and the risk of complications from this procedure appears to be minimal.

Level of Evidence

IV; Systematic review of level III-IV studies.