Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Research Articles

The Double Krackow Suture Technique Does Not Offer a Significant Benefit Compared to the Krackow Suture Technique in Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Using a Double-Loaded Suture Anchor

To compare the biomechanical properties of the double simple suture (DSS) technique, Krackow suture (KS) technique, and double Krackow suture (DKS) technique in subpectoral biceps tenodesis using a double-loaded suture anchor in a porcine tendon model. A total of 30 artificial composite (polymer and glass fiber) humeri and porcine flexor profundus tendons with diameter of 4.5 mm were used. The sample size was determined based on the results of the pilot study. Metallic suture anchors with double-loaded No. 2 braided sutures were inserted at the subpectoral tenodesis site, 5 cm from the superomedial corner of the greater tuberosity. Three suture techniques were used to fix the tendons: a DSS used as the control, a KS, and a DKS, which is an alternative tendon graft fixation technique. A preload of 5 N was applied for 2 minutes, followed by cyclic loading for 500 cycles ranging from 5 to 70 N; next, a load-to-failure test at 1 mm/s was performed. The KS (283.5 ± 57 N) and DKS (270.4 ± 50 N) groups had significantly greater ultimate failure loads as compared with the DSS group (84.1 ± 6.4 N) (P < .001). Meanwhile, the peak displacement at failure loads in the KS group (9.3 ± 2.2 mm) and DKS group (7.8 ± 1.7 mm) were significantly smaller than that of the DSS group (11.3 ± 2.9 mm) (P= .015). Stiffness in the DSS group (36.4 ± 3.0 N/mm), KS group (39.6 ± 2.5 N/mm), and DKS group (36.9 ± 4.6 N/mm) was not significantly different (P= .125). All DSS constructs and 6 KS constructs failed with tendons being cut through by the sutures, whereas the other 4 KS constructs and all DKS constructs failed resulting from suture breakage. In this subpectoral biceps tenodesis model, both the KS technique and the DKS technique had similar time 0 biomechanical properties that were better than those of the double simple suture technique. A sturdy suture-tendon structure could prevent clinical failure of a subpectoral biceps tenodesis using a suture anchor.

Biomechanical Evaluation of Humerus Fracture After Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis With Interference Screw Versus Unicortical Button

To compare the torsional failure strength of the humerus after subpectoral biceps tenodesis with an interference screw versus a unicortical button in a human cadaveric model. Thirteen matched pairs of fresh-frozen human cadaveric upper extremities were randomized to receive either 2.6× 12 mm unicortical button or 6.25-mm interference screw subpectoral biceps tenodesis. After the procedure, the humeri were loaded into a materials testing machine. The humeri were loaded in external rotation with respect to the elbow at 1.0°/s until failure. Rotation angle to failure, failure torque, energy absorbed, and stiffness were compared by paired t-tests with alpha set at 0.05. Humeri that were fixed with unicortical buttons showed statistically significant higher rotation to failure (26.87 ± 5.83 vs 19.04 ± 3.86°, P < .001), failure torque (54.11 ± 22.01 vs 44.95 ± 17.47 Nm, P < .001), and energy absorbed (883.93 ± 582.28 vs 451.40 ± 216.19 Nm-Deg, P= .002) than humeri fixed with interference screws. In a cadaveric biomechanical model, at time 0, the use of a 2.7× 12-mm unicortical button fixation in biceps tenodesis resulted in higher loads required to fracture the humerus when compared with a 6.25-mm interference screw fixation in a torsion model. This study demonstrates a significant biomechanical difference with regards to fracture of the humerus, between 2 commonly used fixations methods and implant sizes, interference screw, and unicortical button. The results of this study can aid surgeons in implant selection as well as help to improve patient education prior to surgery.

Management of Failed Proximal Biceps Surgery: Clinical Outcomes After Revision to Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis

Background: The preferred surgical technique to manage biceps–superior labral pathology is often debated, and rates of revision and persistence of pain vary widely according to surgical technique and patient characteristics. Purpose: To evaluate the clinical and functional outcomes of patients undergoing revision subpectoral tenodesis after failed primary tenodesis or tenotomy of the long head of the biceps. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: All patients undergoing revision biceps management by the senior surgeon between 2006 and 2016 and with a minimum 24-month follow-up were retrospectively identified. Patients being treated with concomitant rotator cuff repair or capsular release were excluded. Patient characteristic variables were recorded. Patient-reported outcomes including the functional score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), visual analog scale (VAS), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons were obtained, and range of motion, strength, and complications were quantified. Results: In total, 25 patients with revision biceps tenodesis were identified at a mean follow-up of 76.5 ± 31.5 months. The average age was 44.4 ± 14.3 years, and the surgical indications included failure of index suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (56%), subpectoral biceps tenodesis (36%), and patient dissatisfaction after tenotomy (8%). There was a significant improvement in the VAS score (P < .001), SANE (P = .001), SST (P = .035), functional score (P < .001), and forward elevation (P = .028), whereas postoperative strength (P = .440), abduction (P = .100), and external rotation (P = .745) improvement failed to achieve statistical significance after revision surgery. There was no difference in postoperative outcome measures between modes of failures, concomitant procedures, and sex. Twenty-two (88%) patients reported high satisfaction and stated they would have this revision surgery again. The overall complication rate was 48%, with half of these reporting pain of >3 on a scale of 10 and 4% of patients requiring additional surgeries. Conclusion: The current study demonstrates high patient satisfaction (88%) and significant improvement in functional outcomes with revision biceps tenodesis, a mini-open subpectoral technique, after previous failed tenodesis or tenotomy. Although this may be an effective strategy to address failed prior biceps surgery, the potential complication of persistent pain must be emphasized. Patients should be counseled on the high complication rate (48%), with persistent pain being the most common complaint.

Arthroscopic Suprapectoral and Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodeses Produce Similar Outcomes: A Randomized Prospective Analysis

To directly compare subjective and objective outcomes of arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (ASPBT) below the bicipital groove and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis (OSPBT) performed with interference screw fixation. A total of 77 patients indicated for biceps tenodesis who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were randomized into the ASPBT and OSPBT groups. All tenodesis procedures implemented PEEK (polyether ether ketone) interference screws. Patients underwent a clinical examination that included range of motion and strength assessment at 3, 6, and 12months postoperatively. Patients completed the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, and Constant score preoperatively and at 6 and 12months postoperatively. Seventy-five patients were analyzed with a mean age of 50.3 ± 10.4years and a mean body mass index of 28.9 ± 6.3. All patients had arthroscopic evidence of biceps pathology and underwent either an ASPBT (n= 37) or OSPBT (n= 38). The surgical time was significantly greater for ASPBT than for OSPBT (16.9 ± 8.4minutes vs 9.8 ± 3.1minutes, P < .001). One patient underwent conversion from the ASPBT group to the OSPBT group because of shearing of a severely attenuated tendon preventing an ASPBT. No significant difference (P > .05) was found in strength or anterior shoulder pain at 3months, 6months, and 1year, and no significant difference (P > .05) was found in clinical outcome scores (ASES, Constant subjective, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation) between the 2 groups at 6months and 1year. The improvement in the ASES score exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (12 points) in both groups. No differences in patient-reported outcome measures, functional outcomes, or complication rates were found after ASPBT compared with OSPBT. However, the results of this investigation must be interpreted with caution because this study may be underpowered to detect statistical differences. Level I, randomized controlled trial.

Radiostereometric Analysis of Biceps Tenodesis: Comparison of the Suprapectoral and Subpectoral Techniques

Multiple surgical techniques and devices for tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) have been described in the literature as viable treatment options. The purpose of this study is to compare the amount of distal migration of arthroscopic suprapectoral (ASPBT) and open subpectoral (OSPBT) biceps tenodesis using a PEEK tenodesis screw.

Analgesic Benefit of PECS II Blockade for Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis: A Randomised, Prospective, Double-Blinded, Control Trial

Axillary pain is common following arthroscopic shoulder surgery with an open subpectoral biceps tenodesis. We hypothesized that adding a PECS II nerve block (PECS) to an interscalene block (ISB) would improve postoperative analgesia.

Outcomes of Primary Biceps Subpectoral Tenodesis in an Active Population: A Prospective Evaluation of 101 Patients

To evaluate the surgical outcomes of a primary subpectoral biceps tenodesis for long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) pathology in a large cohort of prospectively, serially collected, patients in a young active population that has known high physical demands and requirements of their shoulder to perform their vocation. A retrospective review of prospectively collected data from an active military personnel with a diagnosis of a Type II SLAP tear or biceps tenosynovitis was performed. Outcomes were evaluated at a minimum follow-up time of 18months based on preoperative and postoperative assessments of the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, Western Ontario Rotator Cuff index, biceps position, and return to active duty. Inclusion criteria were (1) SLAP tears on magnetic resonance arthrogram (classified into SLAP group), and (2) no SLAP tear but examination findings of biceps tendonitis (placed in the LHBT tendonitis group). Patients were excluded for full-thickness rotator cuff tears, high-grade partial thickness tears requiring repair, acromioclavicular joint pathology, and labral pathology outside of the SLAP lesion. Patients from both groups subsequently were treated with open, subpectoral tenodesis. Over a 6-year period at a mean follow-up of 2.75years (range 1.5-5.7years), 125 active-duty military personnel with mean age of 42.6years (range 26.3-56.5) were enrolled. A total of 101 of 125 patients (81%) completed study requirements at a mean of 2.75years (range 1.5-5.7years). In total, 40 patients were diagnosed with type II SLAP tears (39.6%) and 61 with biceps tendonitis without SLAP tear (60.4%). Following open, subpectoral tenodesis, there was a significant improvement in patient outcomes (Western Ontario Rotator Cuff= 54% preoperative vs 89% postoperative, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation= 58 preoperative vs 89.5 postoperative, P < .01). In total, 82% of patients returned to full activity at a mean of 4.1months. The biceps muscle measured relative to the antecubital fossa of operative (mean 3.20cm) versus nonoperative (3.11cm) was not clinically different (P= .57). There was an 8% complication rate, including 3 requiring revision, 2 superficial infections, and 3 transient neurapraxias. Primary subpectoral open biceps tenodesis for SLAP tears or pathology of the LHBT provides significant improvement in shoulder outcomes with a reliable return to activity level with low risk for complications. Level IV (Case series).

Open subpectoral vs. arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis: A comparison study of clinical outcomes.

The purpose of the present study was to compare the results of open subpectoral biceps tenodesis and arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis for treating long head of biceps (LHB) lesions. From January 2015 to June 2016, a total of 259 patients underwent LHB tenodesis surgery. Among them, 117 patients (60 females and 57 males) who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were enrolled into the present study and were randomly divided into two groups, including an open subpectoral tenodesis group (OSPBT; n=62) and an arthroscopic proximal tenodesis group (ASPBT; n=55). All patients were followed up for at least 12 months. The demographic characteristics of each patient were recorded in detail. Moreover, clinical examinations of LHB lesions, such as shoulder range of motion (ROM), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores (0, no pain, to 10, most severe pain), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, and Constant-Murley shoulder outcome scores, were investigated prior to surgery, as well as 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. Postoperative complications were also comprehensively investigated. There were no significant differences in sex, body mass index, dominant shoulder, duration of pain, injury type and operation time between the groups. The mean length of hospital stay in the ASPBT group was significantly lower than that of the OSPBT group (5.4±1.8 days vs. 9.3±2.9 days; P<0.05). The clinical outcomes, including shoulder ROMs, VAS scores, ASES scores and Constant-Murley shoulder outcome scores, were significantly improved after either OSPBT or ASPBT treatment. Specifically, the VAS score, incidence of postoperative stiffness and bicipital groove tenderness in the OSPBT group were significantly lower than those in the ASPBT group at 3 months post-surgery (P<0.05). Additionally, there were no significant difference in the improvement of other clinical outcomes and postoperative complications between the two groups. ASPBT and OSPBT were both effective and safe techniques for treating LHB lesions. However, tenderness of the bicipital groove was more common in the early stages of recovery post-surgery in the ASPBT group, which may be related to tendinitis of the LHB in the bicipital groove.

Chronic Long Head Biceps Tendinitis Secondary to Anomalous Origins in Young Patients: A Case Series.

To describe a case series of young adult patients with isolated chronic proximal biceps tendinitis refractory to conservative care found to have anatomic long head biceps tendon (LHBT) origin variations who underwent arthroscopic-assisted subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Patients were included in this retrospective case series if they met all the following criteria: 1) had an anomalous origin of the LHBT without any pre-operative or concurrent pathologies at the time of surgery, 2) had non-traumatic anterior shoulder pain refractory to conservative care for >6 months, 3) pain relief with ultrasound guided steroid injections into the bicipital tendon sheath, and 4) routine radiographs and MRI-arthrogram demonstrating no pathology. All patients underwent arthroscopic assisted mini-open subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Pre- and post-operative active range of motion (ROM), strength, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and subjective shoulder values (SSV) were evaluated. Statistical analysis was done using repeated measure ANOVA. Seven patients mean age of 18.4 ± 3.5 years old were included in this study. Arthroscopic examination revealed anomalous origins of the LHBT in all patients with the following distribution: medial to superior labrum (x2), proximal insertion to the supraspinatus confluent with the superior labrum (x2), insertion into the superior capsular tissues at the rotator interval (x2), and bifid LHBT (x1). VAS score and SSV were significantly improved at 3 months (p <0.001 and = 0.024 respectively) and final follow-up. Anomalous origins of the LHBT may be a predisposing factor for chronic biceps tendinitis refractory to non-operative treatment in young adults. Biceps tenodesis seems to offer improvements in function and pain.

Biomechanical Comparison of Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Onlay Techniques.

Background:Subpectoral biceps tenodesis can be performed with cortical fixation using different repair techniques. The goal of this technique is to obtain a strong and stable reduction of biceps tendon in an anatomic position.Purpose/Hypothesis:The purpose of this study was to compare (1) displacement during cyclic loading, (2) ultimate load, (3) construct stiffness, and (4) failure mode of the biceps tenodesis fixation methods using onlay techniques with an all-suture anchor versus an intramedullary unicortical button. It was hypothesized that fixation with all-suture anchors using a Krackow stitch would exhibit biomechanical characteristics similar to those exhibited by fixation with unicortical buttons.Study Design:Controlled laboratory study.Methods:Ten pairs of fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders (N = 20) were dissected to the humerus, leaving the biceps tendon-muscle unit intact for testing. A standardized subpectoral biceps cortical (onlay) tenodesis was performed using either an all-suture anchor or a unicortical button. The biceps tendon was initially cycled from 5 to 70 N at a frequency of 1.5 Hz. The force on the tendon was then returned to 5 N, and the tendon was pulled until ultimate failure of the construct. Displacement during cyclic loading, ultimate failure load, stiffness, and failure modes were assessed.Results:Cyclic loading resulted in a mean displacement of 12.5 ± 2.5 mm for all-suture anchor fixation and 29.2 ± 9.4 mm for unicortical button fixation (P = .005). One all-suture anchor fixation and 2 unicortical button fixations failed during cyclic loading. The mean ultimate failure load was 170.4 ± 68.8 N for the all-suture anchor group and 125.4 ± 44.6 N for the unicortical button group (P = .074), with stiffness 59.3 ± 11.6 N/mm and 48.6 ± 6.8 N/mm (P = .091), respectively. For the unicortical button, failure occurred by suture tearing through tendon in 100% of the specimens. For the all-suture anchor, failure occurred by suture tearing through tendon in 56% and knot failure in 44% of the specimens.Conclusion:The all-suture anchor fixation using a Krackow stitch for subpectoral biceps tenodesis provided ultimate load and stiffness similar to unicortical button fixation using a nonlocking whipstitch. The all-suture anchor fixation technique was shown to be superior in terms of displacement during cyclic loading when compared with the unicortical button fixation technique. However, the results of this study help to show that the fixation method used on the humeral side is less implicative of the overall construct strength than stitch location and technique, as the biceps tendon tissue and stitch configuration seem to be the limiting factor in subpectoral onlay tenodesis techniques.Clinical Relevance:All-suture anchors have a smaller diameter than traditional suture anchors, can be inserted through curved guides, and preserve humeral bone stock without compromising postoperative imaging. This study supports use of the all-suture anchor fixation technique for subpectoral biceps tenodesis, with high biomechanical fixation strength and low displacement, as an alternative to the subpectoral onlay biceps tenodesis technique.

Analgesic Benefit of Pectoral Nerve Block II Blockade for Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis: A Randomized, Prospective, Double-Blinded, Controlled Trial.

Axillary pain is common after arthroscopic shoulder surgery with an open subpectoral biceps tenodesis. We hypothesized that adding a pectoral nerve block II (Pecs II) to an interscalene block (ISB) would improve postoperative analgesia in this surgical population. Forty patients were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, observer and patient-blinded, single-institution trial. All 40 patients received a single-injection ISB with 20 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine with 1:400,000 epinephrine and 1:600,000 clonidine. The intervention arm (ISB + Pecs II) consisted of 20 patients who also received a Pecs II block using 30 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine with 1:400,000 epinephrine and 1:600,000 clonidine. The 20 control group patients (ISB) received a sham Pecs II block. The primary outcome was postoperative pain scores at 6 hours using the numeric rating scale (NRS; range, 0-10) and was analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Secondary outcomes included the presence of axillary pain at 6 hours, the need for postanesthesia care unit (PACU) opioids, PACU length of stay (LOS) (minutes), NRS pain scores at 24 hours, cumulative opioid usage postdischarge through 24 hours, the presence of nausea or vomiting during the first 24 hours, and Pecs II block duration (in hours, based on time to onset of axillary pain). Data were analyzed using a modified intention-to-treat (ITT) methodology. Pain scores (NRS, 0-10) at 6 hours differed significantly between groups: ISB 3.0 (0.25-5.0) (1.7-4.3) versus ISB + Pecs II 0.0 (0-2.0) (0.0-1.1) (median [IQR] [95% CI]); P = .026. Hodges-Lehmann estimator of the difference was 2.0 (95% CI, 0.0-4.0). Fewer patients in the ISB + Pecs II group reported axillary pain at 6 hours and fewer required opioids in the PACU. There were no differences in any of the remaining secondary outcomes. The addition of a Pecs II block to an ISB for patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery with an open subpectoral biceps tenodesis significantly improved postoperative analgesia and reduced the need for opioids in the PACU.

Biomechanical Analysis of All-Suture Suture Anchor Fixation Compared With Conventional Suture Anchors and Interference Screws for Biceps Tenodesis

To compare the biomechanical properties of all-suture suture anchors (ASSAs) with conventional interference screws (CISs) and conventional suture anchors (CSAs) for long head of the biceps tendon fixation during proximal biceps tenodesis (BT). We randomized 21 fresh-frozen human cadaveric shoulders into 3 subpectoral BT treatment groups: ASSA, CSA, and CIS. Each construct was cyclically loaded from 5 to 70N for 500 cycles (1Hz). All specimens that survived cyclic loading were then pulled to failure (1mm/s). Elongation, maximum load, energy, and failure mode were recorded. The humerus was stripped of tissue and then subjected to torsional displacement at a rate of 1°/s until fracture occurred. Maximum load, displacement, stiffness, and energy were recorded. During tendon testing, 3 specimens (43%) in the CIS group failed early during cyclic testing by the tendon tearing at the screw-tendon interface. All other specimens in the CIS group, as well as all specimens in the ASSA and CSA groups, survived cyclic testing and failed during pull-to-failure testing. Failure occurred at the tendon-anchor or -screw interface in all specimens (100%), with no anchor or screw pullout. The CIS group had significantly decreased elongation (8.9 ± 2.23mm) at maximum load compared with the ASSA (19.2 ± 5.2mm) and CSA (18.9 ± 2.23mm) groups (P= .001). During torsional testing, the ASSA group was able to withstand significantly greater torsional displacement (9.22° ± 0.86°) before failure and had greater energy to failure (497.3 ± 45 Nmm-degrees) than the CIS group (6.13° ± 1.24° and 256.6 ± 70.3 Nmm-degrees, respectively; P= .005). This study shows that the biomechanical properties of ASSA, CSA, and CIS constructs are similar. The interference screw group had lower tendon elongation at maximum load but had several early failures compared with the suture anchor groups. The use of suture anchors results in maximum tendon and torsional bone loads similar to interference screws for the long head of the biceps tendon. Torsional testing of the CIS resulted in spiral fractures traversing the screw tunnel in 100% of the specimens, which was not found in the suture anchor groups. The ASSA is a viable fixation method for BT in comparison with the CSA and CIS.

Biceps Tenodesis Is a Viable Option for Management of Proximal Biceps Injuries in Patients Less Than 25 Years of Age

To evaluate outcomes after biceps tenodesis performed in patients younger than 25years, to evaluate reoperations and complications in this population, and to critically appraise return to preinjury level of play for this population. Forty-five consecutive patients younger than 25years underwent subpectoral biceps tenodesis for biceps tendinopathy or biceps-labral complex injuries including SLAP tears. Biceps tenodesis was performed using an interference screw technique. Patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up were analyzed. Functional outcomes were assessed with the visual analog scale score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, ASES functional score, Simple Shoulder Test score, and range of motion. Activity level and return to sport were followed postoperatively. Of the 45 patients younger than 25years who underwent biceps tenodesis, 36 (80%) were available for follow-up at a minimum of 2years, with a mean age of 19.8years and mean follow-up period of 38.6months. Of these 36 patients, 34 (94%) were athletes, with 20 patients playing at collegiate level. All clinical outcome scores improved, with the ASES score improving from 54.7 to 81.7, the ASES functional score improving from 17.5 to 25.1, and the Simple Shoulder Test score improving from 7.4 to 10.1 (P < .001). At the time of follow-up, 4 patients (11%) had undergone revision surgery for other injuries. Of the 34 athletes, 25 (73%) returned to sports, with 19 returning at the same level and 6 returning at a lower level of play; 77% of overhead athletes returned to sports. When indicated, biceps tenodesis offers an alternative to SLAP repair in young patients. Biceps tenodesis in patients younger than 25years yields satisfactory outcomes, with two-thirds of patients returning to sport and a low revision rate. Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Radiostereometric Analysis of Subpectoral versus Suprapectoral Biceps Tenodesis with Interference Screw Fixation

Objectives: Biceps tenodesis is performed with increasing frequency for various pathologies of the long head biceps tendon (LHBT). Multiple surgical techniques and devices for tenodesis have been described with favorable outcomes. The subpectoral approach provides adequate clinical outcomes; furthermore, recent research suggests that similar outcomes can be achieved via arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis. Previous studies have compared the biomechanical profile of suprapectoral and subpectoral biceps tenodesis. There is a paucity of data regarding the biomechanical behavior and construct stability of suprapectoral and subpectoral biceps tenodesis in vivo. The purpose of this investigation is to quantify and compare the behavior of the biceps tenodesis construct in arthroscopic suprapectoral (ASPBT) and open subpectoral (OSPBT) techniques, with radiostereometric analysis (RSA). Methods: This is a prospective cohort study comparing migration of the biceps tendon after suprapectoral and subpectoral biceps tenodesis with Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interference screw fixation. Thirty consecutive patients were allocated to the subpectoral group, follow by thirty consecutive patients to the suprapectoral group. Patients aged 18-65 years with symptomatic biceps tendinopathy, anterior intertubercular groove tenderness, and positive biceps tension tests were included in the investigation. Patients undergoing revision biceps tenodesis, shoulder arthroplasty, or ruptured LHBT were excluded. A mini skin staple, functioning as a radiostereometric marker, was placed longitudinally within the tendon prior to final fixation with interference screw. Staple stability was confirmed with a hemostat to gravity. The distance from the most proximal portion of the mini skin staple and the most proximal aspect of the humeral head was measured. Following final fixation with an interference screw, AP radiographs were obtained intraoperatively. Follow-up radiographs were one week and 12 weeks post-operatively. A paired and non-paired students t-test were utilized to assess for intra-group and inter-group changes, respectively. Results: A total of 60 consecutive patients (30 per group) were enrolled and available for follow-up imaging at 1 and 12 weeks postoperatively. The average age was 43.5±10.5 years, average BMI was 28.3±5.4, and 50% of the patients were females. Groups were similar with respect to patient demographics and concomitant procedures (P&gt;.05). In the OSPBT group, the average distance of the radiostereometic marker to the proximal humeral head increased on by 26.0 mm (SD, 15.7) from the immediate post-operative radiograph to 3 months postoperatively (P=0.002). In the ASPBT group, the average distance also significantly increased by 24.7 mm (SD, 14.9) from the immediate post-operative radiograph to 3-months postoperatively (P=0.001). The change in distal migration between the ASPBT and OSPBT was not found to be statistically significant (P&gt; 0.05). Conclusion: Biceps tenodesis performed with a PEEK tenodesis screw results in significant distal migration of the biceps tendon by 3 months post-operatively; however, there was no significant difference in distal migration between the OSPBT and ASPBT groups.

High Rate of Return to Sporting Activity among Overhead Athletes With Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis for Type II SLAP Tear

High Rate of Return to Sporting Activity among Overhead Athletes With Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis for Type II SLAP Tear

Management of Failed Proximal Biceps Surgery: Clinical Outcomes after Revision to Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis

Objectives:The preferred technique for management of biceps-superior labral pathology is often debated, and rates of revision and persistence pain vary widely accordingly to surgical technique and patient demographics. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and functional outcomes of patients undergoing revision subpectoral biceps tenodesis after failed primary tenodesis or tenotomy.Methods:A retrospective review was completed to identify of all patients undergoing revision biceps tenodesis by the senior surgeon with minimum 24-month follow-up. Demographic variables including age, sex, insurance status, and tobacco use were recorded, Patient reported outcomes including the functional score, Single Assessment Mumeric Evaluation (SANE) rating, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scale, Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and American Shoulder and Elbow Score (ASES) were obtained, and range of motion (ROM), strength, and complications were quantified.Results:In total, 36 patients with revision biceps tenodesis were identified, with a mean age of 46 ± 12 years and mean follow up of 60 ± 29 months. The indication for revision surgery was failure of index suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (56%), subpectoral biceps tenodesis (36%), and failure of tenotomy (8%). Concomitant procedures including rotator cuff repair and capsular release were performed in 25% and 8% of index surgeries respectively. There was a significant improvement in VAS score (P <0.001), SST (P<0.009), functional score (P<0.001) and forward elevation (P<0.001). Postoperative shoulder strength (P = 0.082), SANE (P = 0.074), abduction (P = 0.096) and external rotation (P =0.8) improved, but failed to achieve statistical significance. were not significantly improved following revision surgery. There was no difference in post-operative outcome measures between surgical indication, concomitant procedures and sex. 86% of patients reported high satisfaction and stated they would have this revision surgery again. Overall complication rate was 33% with the majority of these being either acute or chronic pain, with 8% of patients requiring additional surgeries to manage stiffness, chronic pain or rotator cuff deficiency.Conclusion:The current study demonstrates high patient satisfaction (86%) and significant improvement in functional outcomes with revision biceps tenodesis after previous failed tenodesis or tenotomy. Revision biceps tenodesis using a mini-open, subpectoral technique may be an effective strategy to address failed prior surgery, although the potential for persistent pain must be emphasized.

Subpectoral biceps tenodesis using a novel anterior cortical button technique.

Various surgical treatments are described in the literature for biceps pathology. The techniques currently described for subpectoral tenodesis involve the use of suture anchors, interference screws, bicortical suture buttons or unicortical suture buttons. A review of 31 patients with a subpectoral biceps tenodesis using the anterior cortical button technique is presented. We describe a novel technique, which provides an opportunity to obtain a robust cortical and intramedullary tenodesis, performed under direct vision without the risk of drilling the far cortex and therefore avoiding any potential for neurological injury. There is no cortical implant, which may lead to a diaphyseal stress riser and subsequent fracture risk.

Immediate physical therapy without postoperative restrictions following open subpectoral biceps tenodesis: low failure rates and improved outcomes at a minimum 2-year follow-up

We aimed to determine patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing open subpectoral biceps tenodesis with a dual-fixation construct who had no postoperative range-of-motion or weight-bearing restrictions. Our hypothesis was that patients without postoperative restrictions would have low failure rates with improved patient-reported outcomes. We further hypothesized that this technique would allow an earlier return to activity and similar functional outcomes when compared with those reported in the literature. In this institutional review board-approved retrospective outcome study, we evaluated 105 patients who underwent primary open subpectoral biceps tenodesis with a bicortical suture button and interference screw construct without postoperative restrictions. The primary outcome measure was failure of the biceps tenodesis. Postoperative outcome scores included the Short Form 12 (SF-12) Physical Component Score; SF-12 Mental Component Score; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons total score and subscales; and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score. A total of 98 patients (85%) were available for final follow-up at an average of 3.5 years. There were 2 failures (2.2%), at 5 weeks and 9 weeks postoperatively. Four patients underwent additional surgery unrelated to the previous tenodesis procedure. Final outcome scores indicated high levels of function, including the SF-12 Physical Component Score (mean, 51.5; SD, 7.8), SF-12 Mental Component Score (mean, 54.7; SD, 6.7), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons total score (mean, 89.4; SD, 14.2), and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score (mean, 11.3; SD, 13.4). Open subpectoral biceps tenodesis using a dual-fixation construct with no postoperative motion restrictions resulted in excellent outcomes with a low incidence of failure.

Radiologic and Histologic Evaluation of Proximal Bicep Pathology in Patients With Chronic Biceps Tendinopathy Undergoing Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis

To correlate preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and intraoperative anatomic findings within the proximal long head biceps tendon to histologic evaluation of 3 separate zones of the tendon in patients with chronic biceps tendinopathy. Sixteen patients with chronic biceps tendinopathy were treated with open subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Preoperative MRI tendon grading was as follows: normal tendon, increased signal, tendon splitting, incomplete/complete tear. The removed portion of the biceps tendon was split into 3 segments: zone 1, 0-3.5cm from the labral insertion; zone 2, 3.5-6.5cm; and zone 3, 6.5-9cm, and was histologically evaluated using the Bonar score. Tenosynovium adjacent to the tendon was assessed histologically using the Osteoarthritis Research Society International score. CD31, CD3, and CD79a immunohistochemistries were conducted to determine vascularization, T-cell infiltrates, and B-cell infiltrates, respectively. Analysis of variance and Pearson correlations were performed for statistical analysis. Preoperative MRI showed no significant differences in tendon appearance between zones 1-3. Intraoperative findings included nonspecific degenerative SLAP tears or mild/moderate biceps tenosynovitis in all cases. Significantly (P< .001) higher Bonar scores were noted for tendon in zones 1 (7.9 ± 1.8) and 2 (7.3 ± 1.5) compared with zone 3(5.0± 1.1). Cell morphology scores in zone 1 (1.9 ± 0.4) and zone 2 (1.5 ± 0.6) were significantly higher than that in zone 3(0.8 ± 0.3) (P < .05). Inflammatory tenosynovium showed weak correlation with tendon changes in zone 1(r=0.08), zone 2 (r= 0.03), or zone 3 (r= 0.1). In patients with chronic long head biceps tendinopathy who underwent open subpectoral tenodesis, MRI and intraoperative assessment did not show significant structural abnormalities within the tendon despite significant histopathologic changes. Severity of tendon histopathology was more pronounced in the proximal and mid-portions of the tendon. Proximal versus distal biceps tenodesis is a subject of frequent debate. This study contributes to the ongoing evaluation of the characteristics of the proximal biceps in this type of pathologic condition.

Technique for Type IV SLAP Lesion Repair

Type IV SLAP tears involve bucket-handle tears of the superior labrum with the tears extending into the biceps tendon. Surgical treatment options involve either primary repair or biceps tenodesis. Recent literature has shown good clinical outcomes after subpectoral biceps tenodesis for the treatment of type II and IV SLAP lesions. The purpose of this article is to present our technique for arthroscopic superior labrum repair with suture anchors and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis with an interference screw.