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

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.