Open Biceps Tenodesis and Tenotomy Have Low 30-Day Postoperative Complication Rates

Abstract

PurposeTo compare 30-day postoperative rates of adverse events, particularly infection rates, between open biceps tenodesis and biceps tenotomy. MethodsThe American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) was filtered using current procedural terminology (CPT) codes to identify patients undergoing open biceps tenodesis and tenotomy from 2010-2021. Patients were divided into cohorts based on procedure type. Propensity score matching was used to account for confounding variables. Statistical analyses were conducted to compare 30-day postoperative outcomes between cohorts, as well as to evaluate secondary risk factors for complications. ResultsOverall, 12,367 patients were included in the study with 11,417 undergoing open biceps tenodesis and 950 undergoing biceps tenotomy. After matching, 1,900 patients were included in the final analysis. The rate of outpatient procedures in the tenodesis cohort was significantly higher than in the tenotomy cohort. Rates of any adverse event (AAE), sepsis, pneumonia, reoperation, and extended length of stay (LOS) were significantly higher in the tenotomy cohort compared to the tenodesis cohort. There was no difference in infection rates or wound dehiscence between the two groups. After multivariable analysis, increasing age, longer operative time, and history of bleeding disorders were associated with significantly higher odds of developing any adverse event (AAE). ConclusionsIn this study we found that tenotomy and open tenodesis are both safe options for treatment of biceps pathology. The overall rate of developing any adverse event and the rate of postoperative sepsis were higher in the tenotomy cohort. In addition, rates of postoperative infection and wound dehiscence did not vary between the two groups. Small differences were additionally observed in rates of pneumonia, return to OR, and extended LOS, and these rates were higher in the tenotomy cohort. Level of EvidenceLevel III, retrospective comparative study.