Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Research Articles

Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Using an All-Suture Anchor

Long head biceps tendon pathology is a substantial contributor to anterior shoulder pain and often requires surgical intervention to offer a return to normal functionality. Surgical treatment options consist of both open and arthroscopic tenodesis or tenotomy of the long head biceps brachii. Several techniques exist for tenodesis and tenotomy of the biceps, although current debate continues regarding which surgical approach is the optimal intervention for symptomatic bicep pathology. In this technical note, we describe a subpectoral biceps tenodesis of the long head bicep tendon using an all-suture anchor. Our technique offers the advantages of using an all-suture anchor that incorporates a self-tensioning mechanism with direct visualization of the tendon during biceps tenodesis and anchor insertion.

Does forearm position matter in subpectoral biceps tenodesis? A randomised controlled trial.

The optimal position of the elbow and forearm during biceps tenodesis is a debated topic. The aim of our study was to compare two different forearm positions, pronation-extension (PE) or neutral, for fixation of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHB) in biceps tenodesis. Fifty patients who underwent shoulder arthroscopy between February 2016 and January 2019 were included in our study. After diagnostic arthroscopy, the LHB was cut from its origin with a thermal ablator. The LHB was then tenodesed beneath the inferior border of the pectoralis major tendon for 25 patients in the PE position and for 25 patients in the neutral position. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and 3rd, 6th and 12th months postoperatively according to the visual analog scale (VAS), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder and Constant scores. Flexion and supination force measurements were made with a digital dynamometer device, compared to the healthy side for both groups. ASES and VAS scores were statistically better in the PE group compared with the neutral group (p < 0.05), but there was no statistically significant difference between Constant scores at 3 and 6months (p > 0.05). No significant difference was found in both groups for 3 scores at 12months. Comparison of the PE group with the contralateral extremity and comparing the neutral group with the contralateral extremity in terms of flexion strength showed no statistically significant difference. No statistically significant difference was found between the supination powers of both comparative groups. Functional scoring in the PE position is better at 3 and 6months because patients experience less pain at 3 and 6months. The simple change of the fixation position causes patients to feel less pain in the early period.

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 as an Attractive Alternative to Superior Labral Anterior-Posterior (SLAP) Repair for Type II SLAP Lesions in Active-Duty Military Patients Younger Than 35 Years

Background: Biceps tenodesis has been suggested as a superior surgical technique compared with isolated labral repair for superior labral anterior-posterior (SLAP) tears in patients older than 35 years. The superiority of this procedure in younger patients, however, is yet to be determined. Purpose: To compare the outcomes of arthroscopic SLAP repair with those of arthroscopic-assisted subpectoral biceps tenodesis for type II SLAP tears in active-duty military patients younger than 35 years. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Preoperative and postoperative evaluations with a minimum 5-year follow-up including the visual analog scale (VAS), the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder score were administered, and scores were compared between 2 groups of patients younger than 35 years. One group included 25 patients who underwent SLAP repair, and the second group included 23 patients who underwent arthroscopic-assisted subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Results: The preoperative patient age (P = .3639), forward flexion (P = .8214), external rotation (P = .5134), VAS pain score (P = .4487), SANE score (P = .6614), and ASES score (P = .6519) did not vary significantly between the 2 study groups. Both groups demonstrated statistically significant increases in function as measured by the ASES and SANE and decreases in pain as measured by the VAS at a minimum of 5 years postoperatively. Also at a minimum of 5 years postoperatively, patients in the tenodesis group had lower pain (1.3 vs 2.6, respectively; P = .0358) and higher SANE (84.0 vs 63.3, respectively; P = .0001) and ASES (85.7 vs 75.4, respectively; P = .0342) scores compared with those in the repair group. Failure rate was 20.0% in the repair group versus 0.0% in the tenodesis group (P = .0234). Conclusion: Active-duty military patients younger than 35 years with type II SLAP tears had more predictable improvement in pain, better functional outcomes, and lower failure rates after biceps tenodesis compared with SLAP repair for type II SLAP tears. Overall, the results of this study indicate that arthroscopic- assisted subpectoral biceps tenodesis is superior to arthroscopic SLAP repair for the treatment of type II SLAP tears in military patients younger than 35 years.

Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis versus Arthroscopic Repair for SLAP Tears in Patients under 30 (224)

Objectives:The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of mini-open subpectoral biceps tenodesis (BT) to arthroscopic repair (AR) for SLAP tears in patients under 30.Methods:A retrospective review of patients who underwent either isolated BT or AR for the diagnosis of a SLAP tear was performed. Patients with a follow-up duration of <24 months were excluded. The American Shoulder & Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), patient satisfaction, willingness to undergo surgery again, revisions, and return to work/sport were evaluated. A p value of <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.Results:Our study included 103 patients in total; 29 patients were treated with BT, and 74 were treated with AR. The mean age was 24.8 years, 79.4% were male, and the mean follow-up duration was 60 months. At final follow up, there was no difference between treatment groups in any of the functional outcome measures assessed (p > 0.05). Overall, there was no significant difference in the total rate of RTP (BT: 76.3%, AR: 85%; p = 0.53), timing of RTP (BT: 8.8 months, AR: 9.4 months; p = 0.61), and total rate of RTP among overhead athletes (BT: 84.2%, AR: 83.3%; p = 1). However, there was a significantly lower rate of revision surgery with BT (0%) as compared to AR (14.1%; p = 0.03).Conclusions:In patients under the age of 30 with isolated SLAP tear pathology, BT is a reliable alternative to AR, with a low rate of revision surgery, and excellent patient reported outcomes.

Reliable Clinical and Sonographic Outcomes of Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Using an All-Suture Anchor Onlay Technique

To evaluate the clinical outcomes and structural integrity of primary subpectoral biceps tenodesis using an all-suture anchor onlay technique for long head of the biceps (LHB) tendon pathology. We conducted a retrospective case series with prospectively collected data of patients who underwent primary, isolated subpectoral biceps tenodesis with a single all-suture anchor onlay fixation between March 2017 and March 2019. Outcomes were recorded at a minimum follow-up of 12 months based on assessments of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, LHB score, and elbow flexion strength and supination strength measurements. The integrity of the tenodesis construct was evaluated using ultrasound. Thirty-four patients were available for clinical and ultrasound examination at a mean follow-up of 18 ± 5 months. The mean ASES score significantly improved from 51.0 ± 14.2 points preoperatively to 89.8 ± 10.5 points postoperatively (P < .001). The minimal clinically important difference for the ASES score was 8.7 points, which was exceeded by 31 patients (91.2%). The mean postoperative LHB score was 92.2 ± 8.3 points. Regarding subcategories, an average of 47.2 ± 6.3 points was reached for "pain/cramps"; 26.4 ± 6.1 points, "cosmesis"; and 18.6 ± 2.6 points, "elbow flexion strength." Both elbow flexion strength and supination strength were similar compared with the nonoperated side (P= .169 and P= .210, respectively). In 32 patients, ultrasound examination showed an intact tenodesis construct, whereas 2 patients (5.9%) sustained failure of the all-suture anchor fixation requiring revision. Primary subpectoral biceps tenodesis using an all-suture anchor onlay technique for pathology of the LHB tendon provides reliable clinical results and a relatively low failure rate (5.9%). Level IV, case series.

Early Versus Delayed Active Range of Motion After Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis.

Background:Little is known regarding the effect of early active elbow range of motion (ROM) protocols on failure rates and outcomes after open subpectoral biceps tenodesis.Hypothesis:We hypothesized that patients managed using an early active ROM protocol after open subpectoral biceps tenodesis would demonstrate similar failure rates and functional outcomes compared to patients managed using a traditional delayed active ROM protocol.Study Design:Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:We evaluated 63 patients who underwent open subpectoral biceps tenodesis with unicortical suture button fixation. Based on surgeon preference, 22 patients were managed using an early active motion protocol consisting of no restrictions on elbow flexion or forearm supination, while 41 patients were managed using a delayed motion protocol postoperatively. Primary outcome measures included failure of biceps tenodesis and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) scores. Secondary outcomes included shoulder and elbow ROM at 6 months postoperatively.Results:The mean follow-up for the 63 patients was 24.2 months postoperatively. One patient (2.4%) in the delayed active motion cohort and no patients in the early active motion cohort experienced failure. Final outcome scores as well as 6-month shoulder and elbow ROM indicated excellent functional outcomes, with no significant difference between motion cohorts. The median postoperative ASES scores were 97.99 in the early active motion cohort (mean ± standard deviation [SD], 95.49 ± 7.68) and 95.42 in the delayed motion cohort (mean ± SD, 90.93 ± 16.08), while median postoperative SANE scores were 96 in the early motion cohort (mean ± SD, 94.23 ± 6.68) and 95 in the delayed motion cohort (mean ± SD, 88.39 ± 17.98). Subgroup analysis demonstrated no significant difference in outcome scores based on the performance of concomitant rotator cuff repair or hand dominance.Conclusion:Early active ROM after open subpectoral biceps tenodesis with unicortical suture button fixation resulted in low failure rates and excellent clinical outcomes, comparable to the results of patients managed using delayed active ROM protocols. This suggests that patients undergoing open subpectoral biceps tenodesis may be managed using either early or delayed active motion protocols without compromising functional outcome.

Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis May Be an Alternative to Arthroscopic Repair for SLAP Tears in Patients Under 30

The purpose of the current study is to compare the outcomes of open subpectoral biceps tenodesis (BT) to arthroscopic repair (AR) for SLAP tears in patients under the age of 30 years. A retrospective review of patients under the age of 30 years who underwent either isolated BT or AR for a diagnosis of a SLAP tear between 2011 and 2019 was performed. Patients were included if they were >16 years old at the time of surgery, had an isolated SLAP tear involving instability of the biceps-labral anchor (types II-IV), were skeletally mature, and had a minimum follow-up of 12 months. The American Shoulder & Elbow Surgeons score, visual analog scale, Subjective Shoulder Value, patient satisfaction, willingness to undergo surgery again, revisions, and return to play (RTP) were evaluated. A P value of <.05 was considered statistically significant. Our study included 103 patients in total; 29 patients were treated with BT, and 74 were treated with AR. The mean age was 24.8 years, and the mean follow-up duration was 60 months. At final follow-up, there was no difference between treatment groups in any of the functional outcome measures assessed (P>.05). Overall, there was no significant difference in the total rate of RTP (BT: 76.3%, AR: 85%; P= .53), timing of RTP (BT: 8.8 months, AR: 9.4 months; P= .61), and total rate of RTP among overhead athletes (BT: 84.2%, AR: 83.3%; P>.99). Among those undergoing AR, 9 required a revision procedure (11.5%) compared to none treated with BT (P=.11). In patients under the age of 30 years with a symptomatic isolated SLAP tear, BT may be a reliable alternative to AR. Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Increased Load to Failure in Biceps Tenodesis With All-Suture Suture Anchor Compared With Interference Screw: A Cadaveric Biomechanical Study

To compare the biomechanical characteristics of a single radially expanding all-suture anchor with an interference screw for open subpectoral long head of biceps tendon (LHBT) tenodesis. Eighteen fresh-frozen matched-pair human cadaveric humeri were used for this biomechanical study. The matched pair humeri were randomly assigned into 2 experimental biceps tenodesis groups: conventional interference screw (CIS) or all-suture suture anchor (ASSA). Open subpectoral LHBT tenodesis was then performed and biomechanical testing was performed using a servohydraulic test frame. A preload of 5 N was applied for 2 minutes before cyclic loading. Displacement was recorded at cycle 300 (D300) and cycle 500 (D500) and at ultimate failure. Data recorded included displacement, load to failure, displacement at failure. Paired t test was used for analysis. Decreased displacement was observed for the CIS group at D300 (1.67 ± 0.57 mm vs 3.35 ± 2.24 mm; P= .04), D500 (2.00 ± 0.76 mm vs 3.87 ± 2.20 mm; P= .04), and at failure (5.17 ± 3.05 mm vs 10.76 ± 2.66 mm; P < .001). Load to failure was lower in CIS specimens (170 ± 24.5 N vs 217.8 ± 51.54 N; P= .02). Failure in each case was tendon pullout for all CIS specimens; in ASSA 6 specimens failed as the suture pulled through the tendon, 2 specimens failed by suture breakage. No difference in stiffness was observed between the 2 groups (CIS= 98.33 ± 22.98 N/m vs ASSA= 75.94 ± 44.83 N/m; P= .20). Our study found that open subpectoral biceps tenodesis performed with an ASSA construct results in increased load to failure as compared with CIS. However, the CIS did demonstrate decreased displacement as compared to ASSA in this cadaveric biomechanical study. ASSA and CIS at time zero provide fixation as indicated by the provider intraoperatively for LHBT tenodesis. ASSA, however, does remove less cortical bone than does CIS and therefore produces a smaller stress riser in the proximal humerus. Further testing as to the integrity of ASSA is warranted to determine the integrity of the tenodesis with cyclical loading.

High-Tensile Strength Tapes Show Greater Ultimate Failure Load and Less Stiffness Than High-Tensile Strength Sutures in a Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Porcine Model

PurposeTo compare the biomechanical properties of high-tensile strength tape and a high-tensile strength suture in subpectoral biceps tenodesis using a suture anchor in a porcine tendon model.MethodsA total of 24 artificial composite (polymer and glass fiber) humeri and porcine flexor profundus tendons were used. Two types of suture materials, high-tensile strength sutures (group S) and high-tensile strength tapes (group T), were evaluated. After we inserted metallic suture anchors with either 2 sutures or tapes 5 cm from the superomedial corner of the greater tuberosity, a Krackow suture technique was used to secure the tendons. After a preload of 5 N for 2 minutes, a cyclic loading test from 5 to 70 N was conducted for 500 cycles. Finally, the specimen was loaded to failure at a rate of 1 mm/s.ResultsThere were no significant between-group differences in elongation after cyclic loading and elongation at failure load for group S and group T (P = .977 and .630, respectively). The ultimate failure loads in group T (278.2 ± 54 N) were significantly greater than those in group S (249.4 ± 32 N) (P = .028). In contrast, the stiffness values in group T (28.5 ± 4.0 N/mm) were significantly lower than those in group S (32.3 ± 4.5 N) (P = .028). Ten specimens in group S and 8 specimens in group T failed, with tendons being cut through by the sutures, whereas the other 2 specimens in group S and 4 specimens in group T failed due to suture breakage.ConclusionsUsing high-tensile strength tapes in subpectoral biceps tenodesis using a suture anchor leads to significantly greater ultimate failure load as compared with using high-tensile strength sutures in a porcine model. Although lower levels of stiffness were found in high-tensile strength tape group, the difference in the means were not large between 2 groups.Clinical RelevanceA strong suture–tendon structure may prevent clinical failure of a subpectoral biceps tenodesis using a suture anchor.

Return to Play after Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Combined with Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis

PurposeTo evaluate the clinical outcomes and rate of return to play (RTP) in patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis.MethodsA retrospective review of patients who underwent combined arthroscopic Bankart repair and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis by a single surgeon between 2012 and 2016 was performed. RTP, the level of return, and the timing of return were assessed. Visual analog scale for pain, Rowe score, Shoulder Instability-Return to Sport after Injury score, and Subjective Shoulder Value were evaluated.ResultsThe study included 14 patients, with a mean follow-up of 34.2 ± 12.1 months. Of the 14 patients, 13 (92.9%) returned to sport at a mean of 4.8 ± 1.2 months and 9 (64.3%) returned to the same or higher level of sport. At final follow-up, the mean Rowe was 80.0 ± 16.3, the mean Subjective Shoulder Value was 81.0 ± 15.1, the mean Shoulder Instability-Return to Sport after Injury was 57.3 ± 25.6, and the mean visual analog scale score was 2.6 ± 1.5. One patient had a recurrent dislocation, whereas no patients underwent a further operation on the ipsilateral shoulder.ConclusionPatients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair combined with open subpectoral biceps tenodesis had a high rate of RTP with a low rate of recurrent instability.Level of EvidenceIV, Therapeutic Case Series.

Physiologic Long Head Biceps Tendon Excursion Throughout Shoulder Range of Motion: A Cadaveric Study.

Background:Restoration of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) length-tension relationship is critical in preserving muscle strength and efficiency when performing biceps tenodesis. While static anatomic landmarks such as the inferior border of the pectoralis major may be used intraoperatively to achieve this, shoulder position may affect the excursion of the biceps tendon and represents another variable to consider.Purpose/Hypothesis:The purpose of this study was to quantitatively evaluate the normal excursion of LHBT that occurs through a glenohumeral range of motion. We also sought to determine whether elbow position affects LHBT excursion. We hypothesized that LHBT excursion will be affected by glenohumeral flexion and extension, and elbow extension will result in increased excursion at each glenohumeral position compared with a neutral position.Study Design:Controlled laboratory study.Methods:A total of 10 fresh-frozen specimens underwent a standard approach for subpectoral biceps tenodesis. The LHBT was identified and tagged with a radiopaque marker within zone 3 of the bicipital tunnel. A total of 3 K-wires were then drilled into the osseous floor: one at the level of the marker in the LHBT, one at 1 cm proximal, and a third 1 cm distal. All 3 K-wires were then cut flush with the anterior humeral cortex. The specimens were next placed into 8 different positions, and the excursion of the LHBT was measured by referencing the K-wires using static fluoroscopic imaging. The results were analyzed using 1-way analysis of variance testing followed by Tukey honestly significant difference testing for pairwise comparison between each individual position and the reference position.Results:The average total LHBT excursion was 24.4 ± 5.2 mm between the neutral shoulder position and the other shoulder positions tested. The position of the LHBT was significantly different in the reference position compared with each of the other 7 shoulder positions (P < .001). Additionally, the 2 positions of shoulder extension had different LHBT excursions when compared with each position of shoulder flexion (P < .0001). For each shoulder position tested, the position of the LHBT was not significantly different in elbow flexion compared with extension.Conclusion:There is approximately 24 mm of LHBT excursion throughout the glenohumeral range of motion, with significantly different amounts of excursion in glenohumeral flexion and extension. Elbow position does not significantly affect LHBT excursion. Positioning the shoulder in extension during biceps tenodesis may overtension the biceps, while positioning the shoulder in flexion may undertension the biceps relative to the neutral position. Further research is needed to identify the optimal shoulder position for biceps tenodesis.Clinical Relevance:Shoulder positioning is an important consideration in establishing a normal length-tension relationship during biceps tenodesis. When compared with flexed shoulder positions, LHBT excursion significantly differs in positions of extension and in a neutral position.

Early postoperative pain and opioid consumption after arthroscopic shoulder surgery with or without open subpectoral biceps tenodesis and interscalene block

ObjectiveThe addition of open subpectoral biceps tenodesis to arthroscopic shoulder surgery with interscalene block has been anecdotally observed to result in increased postoperative pain. This study aims to evaluate the impact of tenodesis on early postoperative pain and recovery. MethodsA retrospective review of patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery with general anesthesia and interscalene block was conducted. ResultsPatients undergoing tenodesis experienced longer OR time, pain numeric rating scale (NRS), and consumed more morphine milligram equivalents (MME) in PACU. After controlling for confounding factors, tenodesis was significantly associated with increased opioid MME consumption in the PACU (β = 1.045, p = .028) and last PACU pain NRS (β = 0.541, p = .009). ConclusionOverall, pain scores and narcotic consumption were low after surgery, making these differences potentially clinically insignificant. Further study is required to evaluate whether these trends are consistent among this population.

Outcomes and Complications After Primary Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Versus Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis for Superior Labral Anterior-Posterior Tears or Biceps Abnormalities: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Background:Biceps tenodesis is a surgical treatment for both superior labral anterior-posterior (SLAP) tears and long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) abnormalities. Biceps tenodesis can be performed either above or below the pectoralis major tendon with arthroscopic or open techniques.Purpose:To analyze the outcomes and complications comparing primary arthroscopic suprapectoral versus open subpectoral biceps tenodesis for either SLAP tears or LHBT disorders.Study Design:Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.Methods:A search strategy based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Meta-Analyses) protocol was used to include 18 articles (471 patients) from a total of 974 articles identified. Overall exclusion criteria included the following: non–English language, non–full text, biceps tenodesis with concomitant rotator cuff repair, review articles, meta-analyses, and case reports. Data were extracted and analyzed according to procedure type and tenodesis location: arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (295 patients) versus open subpectoral bicepts tenodesis (176 patients).Results:For arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis, the weighted mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score was 90.0 (97 patients) and the weighted mean Constant score was 88.7 (108 patients); for open subpectoral biceps tenodesis, the mean ASES score was 91.1 (199 patients) and mean Constant score was 84.7 (65 patients). Among the 176 patients who underwent arthroscopic biceps tenodesis, there was an overall complication rate of 9.1%. Among the 295 patients who underwent open biceps tenodesis, there was an overall complication rate of 13.5%. Both residual pain (5.7% vs 4.7%, respectively) and Popeye deformity (1.7% vs 1.0%, respectively) rates were similar between the groups. Open subpectoral biceps tenodesis had higher reoperation (3.0% vs 0.0%, respectively), wound complication (1.0% vs 0.0%, respectively), and nerve injury (0.7% vs 0.0%, respectively) rates postoperatively. A meta-analysis of 3 studies demonstrated that both methods had similar ASES scores (P = .36) as well as all-cause complication rates (odds ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.13-4.48]; P = .26).Conclusion:Patients undergoing arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis for either SLAP tears or LHBT abnormalities had similar outcome scores and complication rates compared with those undergoing open subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Additionally, both residual pain and Popeye deformity rates were similar between the 2 groups.

Superior Labrum Anterior-Posterior (SLAP) Repair Versus Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis for Isolated SLAP II Lesions in Overhead Athletes Aged Younger 35 Years: A Comparison of Minimum Two-Year Outcomes

Objectives:In young overhead athletes with isolated superior labrum anterior-posterior (SLAP) type II lesions it remains unclear if patients benefit more from either SLAP repair or biceps tenodesis. The purpose of our study is to evaluate clinical outcomes and return to sports rates in overhead athletes suffering from symptomatic SLAP type II lesions who have undergone either biceps tenodesis or SLAP repair.Methods:A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed in patients who underwent subpectoral biceps tenodesis (group I) or SLAP repair (group II) for the treatment of isolated SLAP type II lesions, were younger than 35 years at time of surgery, participated in overhead sports, and were at least two years out from surgery. Clinical outcomes were assessed by the use of the American Shoulder and Elbow Society Score (ASES), Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation Score (SANE), Quick Disabilities of the Arm, and Shoulder and Hand Score (QuickDASH) and the General Health SF-12 physical component. Return to sports and patient satisfaction were documented. Clinical failures requiring revision surgery and complications were reported.Results:Minimum 2-year follow-up was obtained in 12/14 (85.7%) patients in group I and in 23/27 (85%) patients in group II. Preoperative baseline scores between both groups showed no significantdifferences (p > 0.05). When group I was compared to group II, no significant differences inpostoperative outcome scores were detected (p > 0.05). For biceps tenodesis (Group I) vs SLAP repair (Group II): ASES score was mean 91.6 ± 11.3 vs 88.6 ± 16.9, SANE score was mean 77.5 ± 28.0 vs. 82.3 ± 24.4, QuickDASH score was mean 9.2± 12.2 vs 9.4 ± 14.5, and SF-12 was mean 52.0 ± 6.1 vs 52.6 ± 7.8. No difference in return to sports rate (91% vs 91%, p > .05) was noted. 1 patient in group I and 2 patients in group II failed.Conclusion:This study showed that both techniques of SLAP repair and subpectoral biceps tenodesis provide excellent clinical results with high return to overhead sports rate and low failure rate in a young and high-demanding patient cohort for the treatment of isolated SLAP type II lesions.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Biceps Tenodesis Fixation Strengths: Fixation Type and Location Are Biomechanically Equivalent

The purpose of this meta-analysis and systematic review was to critically evaluate the biomechanical outcomes of different fixation constructs for a variety of biceps tenodesis techniques in cadaveric models based on both type of fixation and location. A PROSPERO-registered systematic review (CCRD42018109243) of the current literature was conducted with the terms "long head of biceps" AND "tenodesis" AND "biomechanics" and numerous variations thereof in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases, yielding 1,460 abstracts. After screening by eligibility criteria, 18 full-text articles were included. The individual biomechanical factors evaluated included ultimate load to failure (in newtons), stiffness (in newtons per millimeter), and cyclic displacement (in millimeters). After reviewing the included literature, we performed a quality analysis of the studies (Quality Appraisal for Cadaveric Studies scale score) and a meta-analysis comparing raw mean differences in data between the suprapectoral and subpectoral fixation location groups, as well as between the fixation construct groups. Among the 18 included studies, 347 cadaveric specimens were evaluated for ultimate load to failure, stiffness, and cyclic displacement when comparing both location (suprapectoral vs subpectoral) and tenodesis fixation type (interference screw vs cortical button, suture anchor, or all-soft-tissue techniques). Interference screw fixation showed significantly greater mean stiffness by 8.0 N/mm (P= .013) compared with the other grouped techniques but did not show significant differences when evaluated for ultimate load to failure and cyclic displacement (P= .28 and P= .18, respectively). Additionally, no difference in construct strength was seen when comparing the fixation strength of suprapectoral versus subpectoral techniques for stiffness, ultimate load to failure, and cyclic loading (P= .47, P= .053, and P= .13, respectively). In this meta-analysis, no significant biomechanical differences were found when the results were stratified by specific surgical technique (interference screw vs other tenodesis techniques) and location (suprapectoral vs subpectoral biceps tenodesis). As a result of this study, when biomechanically evaluating specific tenodesis constructs, the individual clinician has the liberty of choosing the fixation technique based on his or her preference and knowledge of shortcomings of each type of fixation construct.

Minimal clinically important differences after subpectoral biceps tenodesis: definition and retrospective assessment of predictive factors

Minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) at 1 year after subpectoral biceps tenodesis are unknown for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scale, Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Our objectives were to determine MCIDs for these measures at 1 year after biceps tenodesis and to identify preoperative factors that predict attainment of MCIDs. We included 52 patients who underwent arthroscopic débridement, decompression, and mini-open biceps tenodesis from 2016-2018. We analyzed age, sex, body mass index value, arm dominance, diagnosis, range of shoulder motion, and preoperative and 1-year postoperative ASES, SSV, and VAS scores. MCIDs were calculated using a distribution-based method of one-half the standard deviation. Preoperative thresholds predictive of MCIDs were calculated with univariate logistic regression. Multiple logistic regression was used to determine factors that predict MCIDs. Significance was set at a 2-tailed P value of <.05. MCIDs for the ASES, SSV, and VAS were 13, 12, and 1.6 points, respectively. Preoperative ASES score <59 predicted MCID on the ASES (P = .03); VAS score >3 predicted MCID on the VAS (P < .01); external shoulder rotation >40° predicted MCID on the SSV (P = .02); and age >41 years predicted MCID on the VAS (P = .02). At 1 year after débridement, decompression, and biceps tenodesis, MCIDs were 13, 12, and 1.6 points for the ASES, SSV, and VAS, respectively. Patients most likely to attain MCIDs were those aged >41 years, those with the most preoperative pain, and those with the poorest preoperative shoulder function.

Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis: All-Suture Anchor Onlay Technique

Surgical management for biceps pathologies has advanced to provide stronger fixation and to be less invasive. The long head of the biceps tendon has been recognized as a common contributor to anterior shoulder pain and is often associated with other glenohumeral pathologies such as SLAP lesions, rotator cuff tears, and subacromial impingement. Both tenotomy and tenodesis have shown to be effective in ameliorating pain associated with the long head of the biceps tendon. However, decreased muscle function and cosmetic concerns are seen at higher rates after tenotomy compared with tenodesis. One option for the treatment of biceps tendon pathology includes mini-open subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Lower reoperation rates are observed after subpectoral biceps tenodesis than after suprapectoral biceps tenodesis, with thoughts that releasing the tendon from its sheath and the bicipital groove relieves the patient of most associated pain. The purpose of this Technical Note is to describe in detail our preferred operative technique for mini-open subpectoral biceps tenodesis using an onlay technique with all-suture anchor fixation.

Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis of the Shoulder: Indications and Technique Options

Subpectoral biceps tenodesis of the shoulder may be a useful tool that can address a wide range of disorders in the setting of pathology of the long head of the biceps tendon. Primary indications include (1) zone 2 or zone 3 tendon pathology and (2) failed previous proximal tendon tenodesis. Secondary indications include (1) an overhead athlete or thrower, (2) chronic tendinopathy, and (3) surgeon preference. A subpectoral technique allows tendon fixation directly posterior (deep) to the pectoralis tendon high in the bicipital fossa or in the mid fossa or fixation low in the fossa inferior to the pectoralis tendon (infrapectoral). Fixation technique options include an onlay suture anchor, onlay unicortical button, inlay bicortical button, or inlay interference screw. Potential surgical complications include humeral fracture, loss of fixation, tendon pullout or rupture, and neurovascular injury. Regardless of the specific location or technique used, subpectoral tenodesis is a valuable tool for the treatment of proximal biceps tendon pathology.

Mini-open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Using All-Suture Anchor

The proximal biceps tendon is a common source of shoulder pain and dysfunction. When patients continue to have pain after exhaustive nonoperative treatment, the long head of the biceps tendon can be effectively treated with a tenotomy or tenodesis. Although biceps tenotomy is a less complex and highly reliable treatment, there is the potential for suboptimal outcomes including muscle cramping, fatigue, cosmetic deformity, and supination weakness. Biceps tenodesis eliminates the source of shoulder pain while securing the tendon proximally. Currently, there are multiple techniques for performing a biceps tenodesis (arthroscopic, open suprapectoral, open subpectoral) and myriad fixation methods (bio-tenodesis screw, bone bridge, cortical button, all-suture anchor). Our article presents a technique for a mini-open subpectoral biceps tenodesis using an onlay technique with an all-suture anchor preloaded with needles. This technique allows efficient and proper tendon fixation while minimizing potential complications.