Groove Pain Research Articles

Poster 131: Loop 'N' Tack Tenodesis: A Multi-Center Retrospective Case Series of Clinical and Patient Reported Outcomes of a Novel Suture Technique for Proximal Biceps Tenodesis

Objectives: Tenodesis and tenotomy of the long head of the biceps are treatment options for a wide range of pathologies without clear superior technique or site of fixation. Tenotomy may result in a cosmetic “Popeye” deformity and fatigue pain. The Loop ‘N’ Tack technique is a quick, simple, and knotless technique for tenodesis of the long head of the biceps that can be completed entirely arthroscopically. The tensionless repair allows the biceps to scar within the biceps groove, thereby reducing subsidence and formation of a “Popeye" deformity and fatigue pain in the biceps seen with tenotomy alone while eliminating the ability to overtension. The primary objective will be to retrospectively report the clinical outcomes and associated complications of patients undergoing biceps tenodesis utilizing the Loop ‘N’ Tack technique at multiple institutions from 1/1/2015 – 7/25/2021. Methods: CPT procedure codes (29827,29823, 29826) were used to identify participants in the EHR (i.e., Epic) who underwent the Loop ‘N’ Tack biceps tenodesis technique by each author at 9 separate institutions. Patient reported outcomes (PRO) including Visual Analog Scale (VAS), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), UCLA Shoulder Rating Scale (UCLA), and Simple Shoulder Test (SST) were recorded at multiple time points throughout the patient’s preoperative and postoperative course. Scores were compared to the established minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for each PRO to assess the viability of this tenodesis technique. Additional metrics including bicipital groove pain, Popeye deformity, and need for revision surgery were also recorded. Results: 1,473 patients were initially screened who underwent the Loop ‘N’ Tack biceps tenodesis technique. 82 patients were excluded secondary to limited follow up or lack of PRO data within the EHR. The average patient age was 64.7 years old with average follow up of 8.11 months. Mean preoperative PRO scores were 5.64 (2.13), 43.31 (20.38), 15.14 (3.52), 5.81 (1.92), and 49.24 (15.06) for the VAS, SANE, UCLA, SST, and ASES scores, respectively. Postoperative PRO scores at most recent follow up respectively measured 1.05 (1.66), 89.56 (17.06), 31.50 (4.01), 10.69 (1.92), and 89.48 (13.81). MCID was reached for each PRO at the 1-2 month mark postoperatively. 36 patients (2.6%) underwent revision surgery for biceps related pathology, while 40 patients (2.9%) required revision shoulder surgery for a separate pathology. Postoperative Popeye deformity was noted in 15 patients (1.08%). Conclusions: The Loop ‘N’ Tack technique results in high rates of patient satisfaction with improvement in shoulder related patient reported outcomes, low incidence of postoperative pain, and low rates of Popeye deformity. This case series establishes the Loop ‘N’ Tack technique as a viable tenodesis approach during shoulder arthroscopy for biceps related pathology.

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

The long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) is a well-known source of pain in the shoulder, especially in active patients. To evaluate the outcomes and return-to-sports rate after all-arthroscopic suprapectoral tenodesis of the LHBT using a small knotless anchor. Case series; Level of evidence, 4. 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. 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. 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.

Mild Biceps Tendonitis May Be Managed Nonoperatively During Shoulder Arthroscopy

The purposes of this study were to determine whether patients with mild biceps tendonitis required revision surgery after the biceps tendon was not surgically treated, while addressing concomitant pathology, and to evaluate whether preoperative groove pain affected patient-reported outcomes. Patients who underwent shoulder arthroscopy between 2015 and 2018 by a single surgeon for rotator cuff pathology, debridement, and distal clavicular excision (DCE), with or without subacromial decompression (SAD), and where the biceps tendon was not surgically addressed were retrospectively identified. Inclusion criteria were mild LS (<50% hyperemic appearing biceps tendon arthroscopically), and a minimum 2-year follow-up. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of revision surgery. Secondary outcomes included American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, simple shoulder test (SST), pain level, and satisfaction scores. Two sample t-tests compared postoperative patient-reported outcomes based on the presence or absence of preoperative bicipital groove tenderness. Sixty-four of 69 eligible subjects (93%) were evaluated at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively. One out of 64 subjects underwent revision to perform a biceps tenodesis. Overall, patients had high patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) postoperatively. Ninety-seven percent of patients reported they would have the surgery again. The presence of preoperative bicipital groove tenderness had no effect on ASES (P= .62), SST (P= .83) scores, and postoperative pain (P= .65). Patients without bicipital groove pain had average respective ASES and SST scores of 93.70 ± 11.84 and 10.66 ± 2.47; those with bicipital groove pain averaged 92.00 ± 15.31 and 10.78 ± 1.87. There was no significant difference in overall satisfaction scores between patients with groove pain (9.42 ± 1.40) and those without (9.46 ± 1.38; P= .92). Patients with mild biceps tendonitis showed favorable outcomes with low revision rates and high patient satisfaction when the biceps tendon was not surgically addressed when the primary shoulder pathology was treated during arthroscopy, independent of preoperative groove pain. Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Evaluating clinical outcomes of two biceps tenodesis techniques: Loop ‘N’ Tack and subpectoral biceps tenodesis

Biceps tenodesis is an effective surgical procedure that can address pathologies of the long head of the biceps tendon. The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes following two different biceps tenodesis techniques: Loop 'N' Tack biceps tenodesis and subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Patients undergoing both the subpectoral biceps tenodesis and Loop 'N' Tack biceps tenodesis will have improvements in patient-reported outcomes. Hundred and sixty five consecutive patients who underwent biceps tenodesis were retrospectively identified and contacted by phone to collect visual analog scale pain scores, University of California, Los Angeles shoulder scores, Simple Shoulder Test scores, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation scores, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores. Range of motion, elbow flexion strength, and incidence of bicipital groove pain and Popeye deformity were recorded. One Hundred and forty five patients were included in the study (55 subpectoral, 90 Loop 'N' Tack). Patients in both groups reported high American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Simple Shoulder Test, University of California, Los Angeles, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation shoulder function scores, low visual analog scale pain scores, and had a minimal risk of complications when measured one year postoperatively. Loop 'N' Tack biceps tenodesis and subpectoral biceps tenodesis techniques are reliable and effective procedures that can reduce pain scores and restore shoulder function when patients require surgical intervention.

All Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Biceps Tenodesis

Background: Biceps tendinopathy can have significant clinical manifestations in active patients. Failure to achieve resolution of symptoms through nonsurgical modalities oftentimes results in surgical intervention. The 2 most common surgical treatment options for tendinopathy of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) are tenotomy and tenodesis. Both modalities have shown efficacy within the literature; however, tenodesis of the LHBT has many advantages to tenotomy. Indications: Subgroove tenodesis eliminates the potential pain generation within the bicipital groove. Despite recent proof of clinical equivalence in open versus arthroscopic tenodesis, there has been increasing interest in all-arthroscopic biceps tenodesis techniques in hopes of minimizing surgical exposure, decreasing the rate of potential neurovascular compromise, and decreasing the time to recovery. Technique: We present an all-arthroscopic technique for a subgroove biceps tenodesis using a unicortical tensionable button. The proximal biceps anchor is held in place at its insertion site with a spinal needle to prevent retraction. The lateral portal is redirected into the subdeltoid space. A novel suprapectoral biceps portal, called the Willingboro portal, is placed percutaneously 2 cm above the pectoralis tendon. Onlay fixation of the LHBT is performed proximal to the pectoralis major muscle insertion using a unicortical button. Postoperative protocol is similar to other fixation constructs. Results: Numerous arthroscopic biceps tenodesis techniques have been described with good success; however, an all-arthroscopic suprapectoral tenodesis is attractive to many reasons. The unicortical button construct shows similar load to failure strength as the bicortical button construct, both of which are greater than all other constructs described in the literature. Discussion/Conclusion: Arthroscopic subgroove biceps tenodesis using a unicortical button technique is a viable option that avoids the complications associated with an open axillary incision as well as persistent groove pain. Anchoring the biceps tendon prior to tenotomy allows for preservation of tendon length, limiting the complications associated with tendon retraction with anticipated improvement in patient-reported outcomes. The unicortical button is known to have a similar strength profile as the bicortical button technique, which is greater than other techniques described in the literature. Future studies should be aimed at assessing long-term patient-reported outcomes. Patient Consent Disclosure Statement: The author(s) attests that consent has been obtained from any patient(s) appearing in this publication. If the individual may be identifiable, the author(s) has included a statement of release or other written form of approval from the patient(s) with this submission for publication.

Subpectoral versus suprapectoral biceps tenodesis yields similar clinical outcomes: a systematic review

ImportanceArthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (ABT) and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis (OBT) are two surgical treatment options for relief of long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) pathology and superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) tears. There is insufficient knowledge regarding the clinical superiority of one technique over the other.ObjectiveTo systematically review the literature in order to compare the clinical outcomes and safety of ABT and OBT for treatment of LHBT or SLAP pathology.Evidence reviewA systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Embase to identify studies that compared the clinical efficacy of ABT versus OBT. The search phrase used was: (bicep OR biceps OR biceps brachii OR long head of biceps brachii OR biceps tendinopathy) AND (tenodesis). Patients were assessed based on the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score, the visual analogue scale, the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, Constant-Murley Score, clinical failure, range of motion, bicipital groove pain and strength. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed, and both the Cochrane Collaboration’s and Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) risk of bias tools were used to evaluate risk of bias.FindingsEight studies (one level I, seven level III) met inclusion criteria, including 326 patients undergoing ABT and 381 patients undergoing OBT. No differences were found in treatment failure rates or patient-reported outcome scores between groups in any study. One study found OBT patients to experience significantly increased range of shoulder forward flexion when compared with ABT patients (p=0.049). Two studies found ABT patients to experience significantly more postoperative stiffness when compared with OBT patients (p<0.05).ConclusionsPatients undergoing ABT and OBT can be expected to experience similar improvements in clinical outcomes at latest follow-up without differences treatment failure or functional performance. ABT patients may experience an increased incidence of stiffness in the early postoperative period.Level of evidenceIII.

Biceps tenodesis combined with rotator cuff repair increases functional status and elbow strength.

The aim of the present study was to prospectively evaluate the elbow flexion and supination strengths and the functional outcomes of patients following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair combined with simultaneous biceps tenodesis. 19 patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair and biceps tenodesis with at least 24months of follow-up were included. Patients were evaluated using a visual analog scale (VAS) for bicipital groove pain, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and constant scores (CS), biceps apex distance (BAD), elbow flexion, and supination strengths. The VAS for biceps groove measurement averages in the postoperative 6th, 12th, and 24th months was lower in comparison to preoperative data and was considered to be statistically significant (p < .05). The constant score, an average of all postoperative measurements and scores, was found to be higher than preoperative values and was considered to be statistically significant (p < .01). There was a significant difference in the operated and non-operated forearm supination and elbow flexion muscle strength measurements at the postoperative 3- and 6-month follow-ups (p < .01). Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis into the anchors of the lateral row in combination with rotator cuff repair provides an increase in the strength of elbow flexion and forearm supination, while decreasing pain. Level IV.

Early success of the arthroscopic-assisted locked loop suprapectoral biceps tenodesis

There is wide variability in surgical technique for biceps tenodesis. Prior biomechanical studies have demonstrated superior ultimate and fatigue strength with a Krakow-type locked loop when compared with simple suture and lasso-loop configurations; however, this had not yet been clinically studied. The purpose of this study was to assess the short-term results an arthroscopic-assisted locked loop (ALL) suprapectoral biceps tenodesis technique. All patients who underwent an ALL suprapectoral biceps tenodesis by a single surgeon from 2012 and 2019 with a minimum of 12-month follow-up were analyzed. Data collected included demographics, surgical indications, concomitant operative procedures, and postoperative complications of anterior shoulder "groove" pain, "Popeye deformity," biceps muscle cramping pain, and need for revision surgery. Forty patients who underwent an ALL suprapectoral biceps tenodesis met inclusion criteria. Patients were 55.6 ± 8.6 years of age, consisting of 28 men (57%) and 21 women (43%). The median follow-up was 19.3 months. At the latest follow-up, 1 (2%) patient had anterior shoulder "groove" pain, and no patients had a Popeye deformity or biceps muscle cramping. There were no revision biceps tenodesis procedures. The ALL suprapectoral biceps tenodesis technique results in a low incidence of postoperative complications. At a short-term follow-up of 1 year, no patients had reoperations or revisions for failed biceps tenodesis. Groove pain was nearly absent in this series of patients.

Measurements of Tendon Movement Within the Bicipital Groove After Suprapectoral Intra-articular Biceps Tenodesis in a Cadaveric Model.

Background:Lesions of the long head of the biceps can be successfully treated with biceps tenotomy or tenodesis when surgical management is elected. The advantage of a tenodesis is that it prevents the potential development of a cosmetic deformity or cramping muscle pain. Proponents of a subpectoral tenodesis believe that “groove pain” may remain a problem after suprapectoral tenodesis as a result of persistent motion of the tendon within the bicipital groove.Purpose/Hypothesis:To evaluate the motion of the biceps tendon within the bicipital groove before and after a suprapectoral intra-articular tenodesis. The hypothesis was that there would be minimal to no motion of the biceps tendon within the bicipital groove after tenodesis.Study Design:Controlled laboratory study.Methods:Six fresh-frozen cadaveric arms were dissected to expose the long head of the biceps tendon as well as the bicipital groove. Inclinometers and fiducials (optical markers) were used to measure the motions of the scapula, forearm, and biceps tendon through a full range of shoulder and elbow motions. A suprapectoral biceps tenodesis was then performed, and the motions were repeated. The motion of the biceps tendon was quantified as a function of scapular or forearm motion in each plane, both before and after the tenodesis.Results:There was minimal motion of the native biceps tendon during elbow flexion and extension but significant motion during all planes of scapular motion before tenodesis, with the most motion occurring during shoulder flexion-extension (20.73 ± 8.21 mm). The motion of the biceps tendon after tenodesis was significantly reduced during every plane of scapular motion compared with the native state (P < .01 in all planes of motion), with a maximum motion of only 1.57 mm.Conclusion:There was a statistically significant reduction in motion of the biceps tendon in all planes of scapular motion after the intra-articular biceps tenodesis. The motion of the biceps tendon within the bicipital groove was essentially eliminated after the suprapectoral biceps tenodesis.Clinical Relevance:This arthroscopic suprapectoral tenodesis technique can significantly reduce motion of the biceps tendon within the groove in this cadaveric study, possibly reducing the likelihood of groove pain in the clinical setting.

Clinical Outcomes of an All-Arthroscopic Biceps Tenodesis Using the Anterolateral Anchor During Concomitant Double-Row Rotator Cuff Repair.

Background:Pathology of the long head of the biceps tendon frequently occurs concomitantly with rotator cuff tears, necessitating a surgical treatment, often in the form of a tenodesis procedure. Many techniques for a tenodesis exist; however, they often require additional implants or a separate incision.Purpose:To report an average of 2-year outcomes of an all-arthroscopic biceps tenodesis employing the stay sutures from the anterolateral anchor during concomitant double-row rotator cuff repair (RCR).Study Design:Case series; Level of evidence, 4.Methods:Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed for all patients who underwent an all-arthroscopic biceps tenodesis during concomitant double-row RCR by the senior author between January 2014 and May 2018. Patients were included if they underwent this procedure and had baseline preoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with a minimum of 1 year of postoperative PROs for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain score. Additionally, patient data, surgical history, postoperative complications, and satisfaction were reported.Results:Fifteen patients were eligible for the study. There were 12 (80%) men and 3 (20%) women with a mean age of 50.0 years (range, 35-64 years). The mean follow-up time was 25.2 months (range, 13-63 months). Six of 15 (40%) patients also had an arthroscopic subscapularis repair performed. ASES shoulder scores improved from 37.1 preoperatively to 94.1 postoperatively (P < .001), and VAS scores improved from 6.4 preoperatively to 0.5 postoperatively (P < .001). One patient who underwent concomitant subscapularis repair reported continued anterior groove pain. No patients experienced biceps cramping, developed a deformity, or required a repeat operation at the final follow-up. Overall, 93.3% of the patients reported being highly satisfied with their surgery.Conclusion:This study presents the clinical results of an all-arthroscopic technique for concomitant double-row RCR and biceps tenodesis, which resulted in high rates of patient satisfaction and significant improvement in reported shoulder outcome and pain scores. Additionally, this technique offers the potential benefits of avoiding a secondary incision, which may decrease surgical morbidity while also decreasing cost by eliminating the need for an extra, tenodesis-specific implant.

Surgical treatment for long head of the biceps tendinopathy: a network meta-analysis

Surgical options for pathology affecting the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) include tenotomy and tenodesis, both of which can be performed with a variety of fixation methods. This study aimed to compare surgical treatment options for LHBT lesions using a network meta-analysis of published clinical studies. A systematic review of the literature was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Clinical studies comparing surgical treatment options for LHBT lesions were included. Postoperative outcomes were compared between surgical treatment options using a frequentist approach to network meta-analysis. There were 22 studies comparing surgical treatment options for LHBT pathology including arthroscopic tenotomy, arthroscopic suprapectoral tenodesis, arthroscopic intracuff tenodesis, and open subpectoral tenodesis, consisting of 1804 patients. Compared with arthroscopic tenotomy, open subpectoral tenodesis resulted in a significantly greater American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (mean difference, 4.58; P = .014). On the basis of the P-score, all 3 tenodesis techniques ranked above tenotomy with respect to the Constant score. Compared with arthroscopic tenotomy, the incidence of Popeye deformity was reduced with arthroscopic suprapectoral tenodesis (odds ratio [OR], 0.23; P < .001) and open subpectoral tenodesis (OR, 0.25; P = .022). The incidence of bicipital groove pain was increased after arthroscopic intracuff tenodesis (OR, 2.89; P = .021) compared with arthroscopic tenotomy. Lesions of the LHBT treated with open or arthroscopic tenodesis resulted in comparatively superior functional outcomes and a lower incidence of Popeye deformity, whereas arthroscopic intracuff tenodesis resulted in a higher incidence of bicipital groove pain.

Short Term Clinical Outcomes Following Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Onlay Biceps Tenodesis with a Single Suture Anchor

Objectives:The long head of the biceps tendon is a well-recognized potential source of anterior shoulder pain. Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis has emerged as a popular surgical option, however, limited studies exist evaluating postoperative outcomes after an arthroscopic approach. The purpose of this study was to assess short term clinical and functional outcomes after arthroscopic suprapectoral onlay biceps tenodesis with a single suture anchor.Methods:A prospective case series of 50 patients undergoing arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis by a single surgeon. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively at six months with the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) questionnaire, Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), Veteran Rand 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12), and 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12). Strength, range of motion (ROM), biceps apex distance, provocative tests and return to work (RTW) were assessed postoperatively.Results:26 males and 24 females were evaluated. Average ± SD age at surgery was 50.14 ± 10.94 years, and average follow up was 6.48 ± 1.28 months. Biceps apex distance, active/passive elbow flexion, extension, supination, or pronation ROM did not differ (p>0.192 for all) between affected and unaffected sides. Elbow flexion strength significantly increased postoperatively (p=0.004). Significant improvements were noted (p ≤ 0.001 for all) in ASES, VAS pain, SANE, Constant-Murley, and VR/SF-12 Physical Component scores. Four procedures were revisions (8.0%), which were significantly correlated with postoperative bicipital groove pain (p = 0.034), positive Yergason’s test (p = 0.047), and takingpostoperative opioids (p = 0.037). These revision cases and patients with increased BMI were significantly less likely to achieve MCID for VR/SF-12 Physical Component scores (p < 0.05). No patients required subsequent surgery involving the biceps. Out of 45 employed patients, 32 (71.11%) returned to work at an average of 4.68 ± 2.95 months. Light duty had a statistically greater return to work rate compared to heavy duty (p = 0.027). Popeye deformity was seen in 5 (10%) patients, which had significantly increased biceps apex distances (p = 0.029). However, no significant differences were noted in these patients (p > 0.05 for all) for patient-reported outcomes, range or motion, or strength. Only one reported awareness of cosmetic deformity.Conclusion:Shoulder strength, ROM, and multiple outcome measures improved significantly post-operatively with use of arthroscopic biceps tenodesis using a single anchor technique. Although 10% of patients developed cosmetic deformity, this did not significantly affect postoperative outcomes. Revision patients should be counseled preoperatively regarding the increased likelihood of postoperative pain and appropriate opioid medication use.Table 1.Logistic Regression of Variable Associated with Postoperative OutcomesUnivariate Regression (p-value)Multivariate Regression(p-value)Odds Ratio (95% CI)Abnormal Cosmesis – Subjective Gender0.1010.2481.116 (0.926 -1.346) Current Smoker0.0780.1821.166 (0.930 -1.461)Postoperative Pain - Bicipital Groove BMI0.0510.0611.021 (-0.001-0.043) Revision 0.038 0.034 1.691 (1.041-2.747) Postitive O’Brien’s Test BMI0.0530.0871.021 (0.997 -1.045) WC0.1330.5641.091 (0.811 -1.469) Hypercholesterolemia0.0650.0771.450 (0.959-2.191)Positive Yeargason’s Test Current Smoker0.0730.2791.148 (0.894 -1.473) Revision 0.144 0.047 1.447 (1.006-2.083) RC Debridement0.0980.1240.822 (0.640 -1.055) Labral Repair0.1800.5502.04 (0.985-4.261)Pain Medications BMI0.0410.0741.038 (0.996 -1.091) Revision0.1930.6671.132 (0.643 -1.994) Preop Pain - Bicipital Groove0.1150.2131.297 (0.861 -1.953)Opioid Pain Medications Gender0.0540.0731.185 (0.985 -1.426) WC0.1340.3411.102 (0.902 -1.347) HTN0.1300.0530.805 (0.646 -1.003) Revision 0.031 0.037 1.433 (1.022-2.009) Return to Work RCR w/ SAD0.1360.2720.852 (0.640 -1.134) SAD0.1990.4260.818 (0.501 -1.339)Return to Work Same or Higher Intensity Past Smoker0.0820.1640.805 (0.594 -1.093) Psych0.1670.6540.802 (0.305-2.105) Revision0.0450.0940.643 (0.383 -1.079) SAD0.0450.4161.34 (0.660-2.727)Values in bold denote statistical significance (p < 0.05)

Popeye sign: Tenodesis vs. self-locking “T” tenotomy of the long head of the biceps

IntroductionTreatment of long head of the biceps lesions is controversial. A new technique of self-locking “T” tenotomy was developed in our department in 2013. HypothesisThe main objective of the present study was to assess onset of Popeye sign after “T” tenotomy, with comparison to long head of the biceps tenodesis. Material and methodsA continuous retrospective study included 180 patients with long head of the biceps lesion, either isolated or associated with rotator cuff tear. Results130 underwent “T” tenotomy (group A), and 50 tenodesis (group B). Mean age was 57.9 years (range, 23–88 years) in group A and 50.8 years (range, 20–66 years) in group B. At last follow-up, 27.7% of patients in group A and 24% in group B showed Popeye sign (P=0.616), after equivalence test and adjustment on age and occupational activity. Bicipital groove pain was more frequent in the tenodesis group (44% versus 25.4%; P=0.025). DiscussionSelf-locking “T” tenotomy did not significantly differ from tenodesis in onset of Popeye sign or clinical results, and showed better postoperative course. Level of evidenceIV, retrospective study.

Quantification of Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Motion After Loop ‘N’ Tack Suprapectoral Biceps Tenodesis

Objectives:Lesions of the long head of the biceps are one of the most frequent causes of shoulder pain, and they can be successfully treated with biceps tenotomy or tenodesis. The advantage of a biceps tenodesis is avoiding the potential development of a cosmetic deformity (“Popeye sign”) or cramping muscle pain that can remain after tenotomy. Proponents of a subpectoral tenodesis believe that “groove pain” may remain a problem after suprapectoral tenodesis due to persistent motion of the biceps tendon within the bicipital groove. The objective of this study was to evaluate the motion of the biceps tendon within the bicipital groove before and after a suprapectoral tenodesis performed using the Loop ‘N’ Tack technique. Our hypothesis was that there would be minimal to no motion of the biceps tendon within the bicipital groove after the tenodesis.Methods:Six fresh-frozen cadaveric arms were obtained and dissected to expose the long head of biceps tendon and the bicipital groove from the transverse humeral ligament to the pectoralis major insertion. The scapula and ulna were affixed with inclinometers to measure motion in multiple planes. The biceps tendon and bicipital groove were marked with fiducials, which were tracked by two cameras focused on this region. The shoulder and elbow were taken through a full range of motion including scapular abduction, forward flexion, extension, internal rotation, and external rotation and elbow flexion and extension with a supinated, neutral, or pronated forearm. The translation of the biceps tendon was quantified as a function of scapular or forearm motion in each plane. A suprapectoral biceps tenodesis was then performed using the Loop ‘N’ Tack technique. The scapula and forearm were taken through the same motions, and the translation of the biceps tendon was quantified. A paired t-test was performed for each motion to determine if maximum biceps tendon translation in the bicipital groove was a function of tendon condition (native vs post-tenodesis).Results:There was minimal translation of the biceps tendon during elbow flexion and extension, both before and after tenodesis. There was significant translation of the biceps tendon in all planes of scapular motion in the native state, and the largest amount of translation was 20.73mm +/- 8.21mm during shoulder flexion and extension (Table 1). The translation of the biceps tendon after tenodesis was significantly reduced in every plane of scapular motion compared to the native state (p = 0.01 or p < 0.01 in all planes of motion). The largest amount of translation in any plane after tenodesis was 1.57mm +/- 0.98mm, which occured during shoulder flexion and extension (Table 1).Conclusion:In the native state, the translation of the biceps tendon within the bicipital groove ranges from 5.14mm - 20.73mm with scapular motion. There is statistically significant reduction in translation of the biceps tendon in all planes of scapular motion after the Loop ‘N’ Tack tenodesis (Figure 1), with a maximum translation of only 1.57mm. These data suggest that motion of the biceps tendon within the bicipital groove is essentially eliminated and should not be a cause of persistent pain. The Loop ‘N’ Tack biceps tenodesis is a simple, all-arthroscopic technique for patients with proximal biceps pathology. It is a viable alternative to subpectoral tenodesis, essentially eliminating all motion of the biceps tendon within the bicipital groove, and it should not lead to persistent “groove pain”.Table 1.NativePost-TenodesisResultsAverage (mm)S.D. (mm)Average (mm)S.D. (mm)P-ValueElbow Flexion: Supination1.851.660.560.370.15Elbow Flexion: Neutral1.731.430.830.640.30Elbow Flexion: Pronation3.031.550.720.240.01Glenohumeral: Internal/External Rot.9.371.701.320.78<0.01Glenohumeral: Flexion/Extension20.738.211.570.98<0.01Glenohumeral: Full Flexion10.322.600.750.47<0.01Glenohumeral: Abduction5.142.671.261.170.01

Prospective Randomized Study of Arthroscopic Proximal vs Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis

Objectives:The biceps tendon is recognized as a significant source of pain in the shoulder for many patients. Operative techniques for tenodesis of the biceps tendon vary widely. No studies have been conducted directly comparing arthroscopic proximal vs. open subpectoral biceps tenodesis using a prospective study. We aim to compare the functional outcomes, pain relief, and complications of proximal vs. subpectoral biceps tenodesis.Methods:A prospective randomized study of 129 consecutive patients requiring biceps tenodesis for treatment of biceps tendon tears, biceps instability or superior labral tears was performed. Clinical outcome measures used to conduct the study included active range of motion, VAS pain score, ASES score and SANE scores. Complications and revisions were also documented.Results:Mean follow-up was 13.2 months (12-24 months) with 50 subpectoral tenodesis and 46 proximal tenodesis patients reaching minimum follow-up of 12 months. In the subpectoral group, the VAS improved from 5.7 to 2.0 (p < 0.001), ASES score improved from 49.8 to 77.7 (p< 0.001), and SANE scores improved from 42.1% to 77.7% (p<0.001). In the arthroscopic proximal tenodesis group, the VAS pain score improved from 5.9 to 1.8 (p<0.001), ASES score improved from 52.0 to 82.5 (p<0.001), and SANE scores improved from 42.8% to 78.6% (p<0.001). The revision rate for the subpectoral group was 4% (2/50 patients). The revision rate for the arthroscopic proximal tenodesis group was 8.6% (4/46). Twelve patients had persistent tenderness over the bicipital groove: 7 following proximal tenodesis and 5 following subpectoral tenodesis. No significant difference was found between methods in any outcome measures evaluated.Conclusion:This study found no difference in the functional outcomes or pain relief between proximal vs subpectoral biceps tenodesis. However, revision rates and occurrence of post-operative persistent bicipital groove pain for arthroscopic proximal tenodesis with internal fixation screw were slightly higher than in the subpectoral approach.

Patients Have Strong Preferences and Perceptions for Biceps Tenotomy Versus Tenodesis

To evaluate what factors are important in the patients' preference and their perception of a successful surgical outcome. A biceps-specific questionnaire was developed using a series of questions assessing current symptoms, previous knowledge of biceps tendon surgery, surgical outcome priorities, and patient demographics and administered to 100 patients with proximal biceps pathology after approval by the Institutional Review Board. The patients were asked which surgery they would prefer. A set of χ2 tests were used to test the association between categorical variables. All tests were 2-sided and considered significant at P < .05. A total of 100 patients enrolled in the study, with 49 female and 51 male patients at an average age of 49years (range, 19 to 79years). Of the 100 patients, 64 (64%) chose to have biceps tenodesis. Factors predictive of choosing a biceps tenodesis included female sex, and concern of cosmetic deformity and residual postoperative pain with a tenotomy (P < .05). Factors predictive of choosing a tenotomy included male sex, high level of current biciptal groove pain, and concerns regarding the use of additional hardware and longer recovery with a tenodesis (P < .05). Age, body mass index, occupation, income level, and concerns regarding postoperative strength and muscle cramping were not found to have a significant predictive effect toward either procedure. Patient age should not be used as the sole criterion when deciding between biceps tenotomy and tenodesis. Our results can be consolidated to 5 predictive, reliable questions that will assist orthopaedic surgeons in making individualized patient-specific decisions regarding proximal biceps tendon surgery by emphasizing what factors are most important to patients for a successful surgical outcome.

Transfer of the long head of biceps to the conjoint tendon. A biomechanical study

BackgroundTenodesis of the long head of biceps has been intensively investigated and various surgical options exist. The aim of this biomechanical study was to compare the maximum strength of two different techniques for biceps tenodesis. Our hypothesis was that the two procedures have the same biomechanical properties. MethodsWe performed the two different tenodesis techniques using 12 fresh frozen shoulders divided into two groups of six. In the first group, the biceps was transferred to the conjoint tendon. In the second group, an intraossous suprapectoral tenodesis was performed. After a preload of 10N, cyclical loading with a maximum of 60N and 100N with 100cycles and 0.5Hz was applied to the tendons for both groups. An axial ultimate loading to failure was conducted subsequently. ResultsNo significant differences were found in age, bone mineral density, or weight between the two groups. During the cyclical loading with 60N, one slippage of the tendon was observed in the suprapectoral group. The mean ultimate load to failure was 294.15N in the transposition group and 186.76N in the suprapectoral group, but this difference was not significant (P=0.18). InterpretationThe biomechanical results demonstrated equal biomechanical properties postoperatively for both transposition of the tendon and the current standard suprapectoral tenodesis procedure. The transposition can be performed as a primary or a salvage procedure in order to potentially reduce the proportion of patients with persistent postoperative bicipital groove pain and is comparable in strength to a standard tenodesis.

No-holes transpectoral tenodesis technique vs tenotomy of the long head of the biceps brachii.

There is no univocal consensus regarding Long Head of the Biceps (LHB) best treatment between tenotomy and tenodesis. There is no consensus regarding the best location to perform the tenodesis. The LHB tenodesis performed by the proximal tendon excision as first step can miss the proper tension to the muscle belly. Fixations proximal to the pectoralis major can lead to groove pain. This study aims to test the efficacy of a new LHB tenodesis technique by comparing its results with the tenotomy. We retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent surgery between May 2014 and May 2015. The mean follow up was 14.7 months. Sixteen patients underwent mini-open tenodesis to the Pectoralis Major tendon by the use of a resorbable suture (TD group); sixteen underwent tenotomy (TT group). The mean age of the TD group was 54 years; the mean age of the TT group was 56 years. We evaluated pain, subjective perception of the patient of possible aesthetic and strength differences between the two biceps, "Popeye sign", and tests to stimulate the LHB. We administered three evaluation questionnaires: the ASES score, the SPADI score, and the SST. 32 consecutive patients were evaluated. The clinical scores did not record statistically significant differences: the mean ASES score was 92.9 (TD) and 90.8 (TT); the mean SPADI score was 92.5 (TD), and 89.7 (TT); the mean SST was 8.9 (TD), and 8.4 (TT). Compared to the TD group, in the TT group we registered with greater frequency the "Popeye sign" with a P value < 0.05 (9 cases vs 1), and spasms in the biceps muscle belly (5 cases vs 1). All other signs or symptoms evaluated were more frequent in the TT group, except the strength difference perceived by the patient (3 patients in the TT group, and 2 in the TD group). No complications were recorded. This new Long Head of the Biceps (LHB) tenodesis technique is valuable and reliable, and provided better results than tenotomy. IV.

Reduction mammaplasty improves symptoms of macromastia.

The condition macromastia has not been defined and characterized precisely by the medical community. Whether the patient with hypertrophic breasts is a candidate for or can be helped by reduction mammaplasty is unclear to both the medical and the lay community. A prospective study of 39 women undergoing reduction mammaplasty surgery was initiated to answer these questions. Patients rated the severity of their somatic pain symptoms and discomfort before reduction mammaplasty and again after complete recovery. The severity of their symptoms and complaints was numerically graded and analyzed. These data were compared with similar data obtained from 40 "small-breasted" women of similar age. Headache, neck pain, back pain, shoulder pain, and bra strap groove pain were present in 60 to 92 percent of patients, and 97 percent of patients had at least three of these pain symptoms preoperatively. All the patients had reduction of their pain symptomatology postoperative, and 25 percent of the study patients had total elimination of pain symptoms by reduction mammaplasty. The postoperative incidence and severity of pain symptoms and discomfort complaints were statistically equivalent to or less than the levels in the control group.

Proximal nail groove pain associated with an exostosis.

Proximal nail groove pain associated with an exostosis.