Tenodesis Group Research Articles

Biomechanical comparisons of all--suture suspensory button vs. interference screw for inlay subpectoral bicep tenodesis

All-suture buttons (ASBs) and interference screw (IS) are commonly utilized in the inlay subpectoral biceps tendon tenodesis. However, the biomechanical characteristics of these two methods have not been compared directly. The aim of present study was to compare the biomechanical properties of ASB vs. IS for inlay subpectoral biceps tendon tenodesis in a human cadaveric model. Sixteen fresh-frozen human cadaveric shoulders were randomly divided into two experimental inlay biceps tenodesis groups: ASB or IS. After tenodesis, every specimen was preloaded at 5N for 2minutes, followed with a cyclic loading test from 5 to 70N for 500 load cycles. Then the load-to-failure test was performed. Afterward, the humerus was placed in a cylinder tube and secured with anchoring cement. Lastly, a two-point bending test was performed to determine the strength of the humerus. Destructive axial force was applied, and the failure strength and displacement were recorded. No difference in stiffness was observed between the two groups (ASB=27.4±3.5N/mm vs. IS=29.7±3.0N/mm; P=.270). Cyclic displacement was significantly greater in the ASB group (6.8±2.6mm) than the IS group (3.8±1.1mm; P=.021). In terms of failure load, there were no statistical differences among the two groups (P=.234). The ASB group was able to withstand significantly greater displacement (11.9±1.6mm) before failure than the IS group (7.8±1.5mm; P=.001). During the humeral bending test, the ASB group exhibited significantly greater maximal load (2354.8±285.1N vs. 2086.4±296.1N; P=.046) and larger displacement (17.8±2.8mm vs. 14.1±2.8mm; P=.027) before fracture. In inlay subpectoral bicep tenodesis, ASB fixation appears to offer comparable stiffness and failure load to that of IS fixation. Additionally, the ASB group exhibited greater resistance to load and displacement before humeral fracture. However, the ASB group did demonstrate increased cyclic displacement compared to IS group.

Concomitant Biceps Tenodesis Does Not Compromise Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair Outcomes

To compare outcomes of patients who underwent rotator cuff repair (RCR) with concomitant biceps tenodesis with those who underwent an isolated RCR. Exclusion criteria included previous ipsilateral shoulder surgery, irreparable rotator cuff tears, rotator cuff arthropathy, calcific tendinitis, adhesive capsulitis requiring a capsular release, or advanced osteoarthritis of the glenohumeral joint. Patients were indicated for biceps tenodesis if they had any degree of tendon tearing, moderate-to-severe tenosynovitis, instability, or a significant degenerative SLAP tear. Primary outcome measures included American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test, EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level visual analog scale, EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level, and a site-specific questionnaire, which focused on surgical expectations, satisfaction, and complications. Multivariate analysis of variance to analyze descriptive statistics and determine significant differences between the patient groups for subjective and objective outcome measures were performed. There were no significant differences for pain/visual analog scale (0.34 ± 0.09 vs 0.47 ± 0.09, P= .31), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (96.69 ± 0.87 vs 94.44 ± 0.91, P= .07), and Simple Shoulder Test (11.42±0.17 vs 10.95 ± 0.18, P= .06) between the RCR with concomitant biceps tenodesis and isolated RCR at a minimum of 2 years' postoperatively. This is despite the RCR with concomitant biceps tenodesis group having significantly larger rotator cuff tears (4.25 ± 0.30 cm2 vs 2.80 ± 0.32 cm2, P= .001) than the isolated RCR group. This study revealed that concomitant biceps tenodesis does not compromise outcomes when compared with an isolated RCR at 2-year follow-up, despite this group having larger rotator cuff tears. Level III, retrospective case study.

Comparison of decrease in elbow flexion strength in patients after tenotomy and tenodesis of the long head of the biceps brachii.

The last two decades have been leading to the development of several types of surgical techniques and procedures to manage the LHB lesions. This paper analyses and compares the difference in muscle strength pre- and post-operatively in two most commonly used surgical procedures - LHB tenotomy and tenodesis. The study includes 68 patients who underwent surgery between 2016 and 2020. The patients who had met the prospective study inclusion criteria were divided into two groups based on type of surgery they had undergone (LHB tenotomy or tenodesis); each group consisted of 34. The muscle strength during elbow flexion was measured preoperatively and postoperatively using the Commander Echo Console ultrasound muscle testing device. All patients enrolled in the study had been assessed for elbow flexion strength preoperatively. The muscle strength was measured preoperatively and then 3 years postoperatively (12 to 60 months) on average. The study confirmed that the patients who had undergone LHB tenodesis show asignificantly lower decrease in elbow flexion strength and asignificantly lower incidence of "Popeye" deformity than the patients after LHB tenotomy. Moreover, in the tenodesis group, it was possible to initiate rehabilitation earlier. The incidence of postoperative complications was almost identical in both groups of patients (Tab. 10, Fig. 6, Ref. 40).

Concomitant Biceps Tenodesis Does Not Portend Inferior Outcomes After Anterior Glenohumeral Stabilization

Background: Military patients are known to suffer disproportionately high rates of glenohumeral instability as well as superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) tears. Additionally, a concomitant SLAP tear is frequently observed in patients with anterior shoulder instability. Even though biceps tenodesis has been demonstrated to produce superior outcomes to SLAP repair in military patients with isolated SLAP lesions, no existing studies have reported on outcomes after simultaneous tenodesis and anterior labral repair in patients with co-existing abnormalities. Purpose: To evaluate outcomes after simultaneous arthroscopic-assisted subpectoral biceps tenodesis and anterior labral repair in military patients younger than 40 years. We also sought to compare these outcomes with those after repair of an isolated anterior labral tear. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: This study is a retrospective analysis of all military patients younger than 40 years from a single base who underwent arthroscopic anterior glenohumeral stabilization with or without concomitant biceps tenodesis between January 2010 and December 2019. Patients with glenoid bone loss of >13.5% were not eligible for inclusion. Outcome measures including the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder score, the Rowe instability score, and range of motion were administered preoperatively and postoperatively, and scores were compared between groups. Results: A total of 82 patients met inclusion criteria for the study. All patients were active-duty service members at the time of surgery. The mean follow-up was 87.75 ± 27.05 months in the repair + tenodesis group and 94.07 ± 28.72 months in the isolated repair group (P = .3085). Patients who underwent repair + tenodesis had significantly worse preoperative VAS pain (6.85 ± 1.86 vs 5.02 ± 2.07, respectively; P < .001), ASES (51.78 ± 11.89 vs 62.43 ± 12.35, respectively; P = .0002), and Rowe (26.75 ± 7.81 vs 37.26 ± 14.91, respectively; P = .0002) scores than patients who underwent isolated repair. Both groups experienced significant improvements in outcome scores postoperatively (P < .0001 for all), and there were no statistically significant differences in postoperative outcome scores or range of motion between groups. There were no differences in the percentage of patients who achieved the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptom state for the VAS pain, SANE, ASES, and Rowe scores between groups. Overall, 37 of the 40 (92.50%) patients in the repair + tenodesis group and 40 of the 42 (95.24%) patients in the isolated repair group returned to unrestricted active-duty military service (P = .6045). In addition, 38 (95.00%) patients in the repair + tenodesis group and 40 (95.24%) patients in the isolated repair group returned to preinjury levels of sporting activity (P = .9600). There were no significant differences in the number of failures, revision surgical procedures, or patients discharged from the military between groups (P = .9421, P = .9400, and P = .6045, respectively). Conclusion: The findings of this study indicate that simultaneous biceps tenodesis and labral repair was a viable treatment option for the management of concomitant SLAP and anterior labral lesions in young, active military patients younger than 40 years.

Modified arthroscopic intra-articular transtendinous looped biceps tenodesis leads to satisfactory functional outcomes and less frequent Popeye deformity compared to biceps tenotomy

PurposeThe present study aimed to propose a modified intra-articular transtendinous looped biceps tenodesis (mTLBT) using a suture anchor and to compare the functional outcomes and incidence of Popeye deformities between biceps tenotomy and mTLBT.MethodsMedical records of patients who underwent either tenotomy or mTLBT for the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) lesion between January 2016 and April 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. The inclusion criteria were patients aged 40–70 years with LHBT pathologies, such as superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) lesions > type II, LHBT pulley system rupture with bicipital instability, and intra-articular LHBT tear. The exclusion criteria were full-thickness supraspinatus tears, frozen shoulder, shoulder fracture, and postoperative traumatic events that affected the operated shoulder. All patients were followed up for at least 1 year. Popeye deformity, bicipital cramping pain, visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, and functional outcome scores (University of California at Los Angeles [UCLA] and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES] scores) were recorded. Fisher’s exact test and Chi-square test were used for categorical variables, whereas the Mann–Whitney U test was used for nonparametric variables.ResultsThe mTLBT and tenotomy groups included 15 and 40 patients, respectively. The incidence of Popeye deformity and biceps cramping pain in the tenotomy group (52.5% and 50%, respectively) was significantly higher than that in the mTLBT group (13.3% and 20%, respectively) (p = 0.009 and p = 0.045, respectively). The postoperative VAS, UCLA, and ASES scores were not significantly different between the two groups. One patient in the tenodesis group experienced metallic-anchor pullout.ConclusionmTLBT is an arthroscopic intra-articular top of the groove tenodesis that can be performed completely in the intra-articular space and is especially suitable for patients with an intact or partially torn rotator cuff. This technique is reliable for treating biceps pathologies as it results in similar functional outcome scores, lesser biceps cramping pain, and less frequent Popeye deformity compared to biceps tenotomy.Level of EvidenceIII.

Poster 196: Comparable Short and Mid-Term Clinical Outcomes between Subacromial Balloon Spacer Implantation and Partial Rotator Cuff Repair with Concomitant Biceps Tenotomy versus Tenodesis

Objectives: While short and mid-term clinical outcomes following implantation of an arthroscopic subacromial balloon spacer for massive, irreparable rotator cuff tears (MIRCTs) have been favorable [1], little is known about the effects of concomitant procedures on clinical outcomes and early post- operative recovery. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of concomitant proximal biceps surgery on short and mid-term outcomes following partial rotator cuff repair or subacromial balloon spacer implantation using the InSpace? device (Stryker; Kalamazoo, MI; Figure 1). Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from a previously published randomized, clinical trial comparing the InSpace? device to partial rotator cuff repair in the management of symptomatic MIRCTs (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02493660) [1]. Study participants with posterosuperior MIRCTs (as defined by MRI diagnosis of ≥2 tendon involvement and ≥5 cm of retraction from the tendon insertion) treated operatively with subacromial balloon spacer implantation or partial rotator cuff repair and concomitant biceps tenotomy or tenodesis were considered for this study. The primary outcome in this study was the achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) for the American Shoulder and Elbow (ASES) score at 6 weeks and 24 months postoperatively. Established MCID and SCB thresholds from the literature were used, requiring a ≥11.1-point increase in ASES score for MCID achievement and a ≥17.5-point increase for SCB achievement [2]. Fisher’s exact test was used to compare MCID and SCB achievement rates between groups. Results: A total of 103 patients were included in this analysis, of which 48 patients were in the InSpace? cohort and 55 were in the partial rotator cuff repair cohort (Table 1). At 6 weeks post-operatively, a larger percentage of patients who received InSpace? with concomitant biceps tenotomy achieved MCID on ASES compared to those receiving a concomitant tenodesis, though this result was not statistically significant (64.3% vs 42.1%, p = 0.15) (Table 1). Similarly, a larger percentage of patients who underwent arthroscopic partial rotator cuff repair with biceps tenotomy achieved MCID on ASES compared to those undergoing partial repair with biceps tenodesis, though this was not statistically significant (56.3% vs 40.9%, p = 0.41). Similar trends were seen for SCB achievement rates at 6 weeks (Table 2). Notably, SCB achievement rates were significantly greater for patients undergoing InSpace? with biceps tenotomy versus partial repair with biceps tenodesis (p = 0.04). At 24 months, ASES MCID achievement rates for the InSpace? with biceps tenotomy group were similar to the InSpace? with biceps tenodesis group (96.2% vs 86.7%, p = 0.54) (Table 1). Similarly, there was no significant difference between the partial repair with concomitant tenodesis and tenotomy groups (100% vs 92.9%, p = 0.51). Similar trends were seen for SCB achievement rates at this time point (Table 2). Notably, there was no longer a significant difference in SCB achievement rates between the InSpace? with biceps tenotomy group and partial repair with biceps tenodesis group (p = 1.00). Conclusions: The primary goal of treatment during arthroscopic implantation of a subacromial balloon spacer is pain relief in the setting of relatively well-maintained function. Although all patients in this study received standardized post-operative rehabilitation, including 4-week sling use, our results suggest that providers seeking accelerated rehabilitation for their patients may consider concomitant biceps tenotomy for biceps pathology to avoid prolonged immobilization, decrease risk of stiffness, and provide earlier achievement of clinically significant outcomes on patient-reported outcome measures. [Table: see text][Table: see text]

Poster 178: Outcomes of SLAP Repair vs. Biceps Tenodesis of SLAP Lesions in Females: A Retrospective Review

Objectives: When surgically managing superior labrum from anterior to posterior (SLAP) tears, there is no consensus on whether SLAP repair or biceps tenodesis yields superior long term outcomes. Additionally, no previous studies have specifically examined outcomes of these procedures in female patients, despite evidence of sex-based differences in recovery following orthopedic surgery. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively compare outcomes after SLAP repair and biceps tenodesis in females. Prior to the start of the study, it was predicted that outcomes between patients who undergo SLAP repair and biceps tenodesis as a treatment will not significantly differ. Methods: Female patients who underwent arthroscopic SLAP repair or biceps tenodesis for treatment of an SLAP lesion between 1/1/2014 and 9/1/2019 at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were queried using CPT codes for arthroscopic SLAP repair or biceps tenodesis: for those identified, electronic medical records were reviewed to confirm they met inclusion criteria. Exclusion criteria included: age less than 18 years old at the time of surgery, revision surgery, and concomitant rotator cuff repair at the time of surgery. Patients were contacted at a minimum of two-years post- surgery and asked to complete the standardized American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, single assessment numerical evaluation (SANE) survey, and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Patients were also given a custom survey assessing return to activity and level of activity following the operation. Patient demographics collected included age at time of surgery, BMI, laterality, and procedure type. Differences in post-operative function between the procedures were assessed using T-tests or Mann- Whitney U tests for numerical data and Chi-Square testing for categorical data. Results: The study included 118 patients. 61 (51.7%) underwent arthroscopic SLAP repair, and 57 (48.3%) underwent open or arthroscopic biceps tenodesis. Comparing demographic data for SLAP repair versus biceps tenodesis groups, mean age was 35.2±8.93 years versus 45.5±10.2 years (p&lt;0.001), mean BMI was 27.5 versus 29.2 (p=0.095), the rates of left shoulder repairs was 30 (50.8%) versus 14 (26.4%), and the rates of right shoulder repairs was 29 (49.2%) versus 39 (73.6%) (p=0.014). Concomitant pathologies were recorded in 68.9% of SLAP repairs and in 88.0% of biceps tenodesis (p=0.030). Concomitant procedures (including bursectomy, capsular release, and acromioplasty) were performed in 74.6% of SLAP repairs and in 92.0% of biceps tenodesis (p=0.033). The two groups showed no differences in two-year ASES scores (81.5 in SLAP repair vs 83.3 in biceps tenodesis, p=0.461), SANE scores (75.6 in SLAP repair vs 79.7 in biceps tenodesis, p=0.344) and VAS scores (20.2 in SLAP repair vs 21.1 in biceps tenodesis, p=0.645). Furthermore, rates of participation in sports prior to surgery was similar (55.4% in SLAP repair vs 42.6% in biceps tenodesis , p=0.251); of those who reported participation prior to surgery, rates of return to participation in sport following surgery was also similar (77.4% in SLAP repair vs 78.3% in biceps tenodesis, p=1.000). Conclusions: This is the first study to evaluate the outcomes of SLAP repair and biceps tenodesis for SLAP lesions in female patients. Female patients who underwent surgical treatment of SLAP lesions with SLAP repair or biceps tenodesis show comparable minimum two-year results with respect to level of function, self-reported pain, and ability to return to sports after these procedures. The incidence of concomitant pathologies and concomitant procedures at the time of SLAP repair and biceps tenodesis differed between the two groups, possibly related to group age disparity. Further research is necessary to define precise treatment indications for this pathology in this specific patient population.

Midterm Outcomes Following Combined Biceps Tenodesis and Anterior Labral Repair in Active Duty Military Patients Younger Than 35 Years

Background: Superior labrum anterior-posterior (SLAP) lesions and anterior instability are common causes of shoulder pain and dysfunction among active-duty members of the United States military. However, little data have been published regarding the surgical management of type V SLAP lesions. Purpose: To compare the outcomes of arthroscopic-assisted subpectoral biceps tenodesis and anterior labral repair with those of arthroscopic SLAP repair (defined as contiguous repair spanning from the superior labrum to the anteroinferior labrum) for type V SLAP tears in active-duty military patients younger than 35 years. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: All consecutive patients from January 2010 to December 2015 who underwent arthroscopic SLAP repair or combined biceps tenodesis and anterior labral repair for a type V SLAP lesion with a minimum 5-year follow-up were identified. The decision to perform type V SLAP repair versus combined biceps tenodesis and anterior labral repair was based on the condition of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT). Labral repair was performed in patients who had a type V SLAP tear with an otherwise clinically and anatomically healthy LHBT. Combined tenodesis and repair was performed in patients with evidence of LHBT abnormalities. Outcomes including the visual analog scale (VAS) score, the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder score, the Rowe instability score, and range of motion were collected preoperatively and postoperatively, and scores were compared between the groups. Results: A total of 84 patients met the inclusion criteria for the study. All patients were active-duty service members at the time of surgery. A total of 44 patients underwent arthroscopic type V SLAP repair, and 40 patients underwent anterior labral repair with biceps tenodesis. The mean follow-up was 102.59 ± 20.98 months in the repair group and 94.50 ± 27.11 months in the tenodesis group (P = .1281). There were no significant differences in preoperative range of motion or outcome scores between the groups. Both groups experienced statistically significant improvements in outcome scores postoperatively (P < .0001 for all); however, compared with the repair group, the tenodesis group reported significantly better postoperative VAS (2.52 ± 2.36 vs 1.50 ± 1.91, respectively; P = .0328), SANE (86.82 ± 11.00 vs 93.43 ± 8.81, respectively; P = .0034), and ASES (83.32 ± 15.31 vs 89.90 ± 13.31, respectively; P = .0394) scores. There were no differences in the percentage of patients who achieved the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptom state for the SANE and ASES between the groups. Overall, 34 patients in each group returned to preinjury levels of work (77.3% vs 85.0%, respectively; P = .3677), and 32 patients (72.7%) in the repair group and 33 patients (82.5%) in the tenodesis group returned to preinjury levels of sporting activity (P = .2850). There were no significant differences in the number of failures, revision surgical procedures, or patients discharged from the military between the groups (P = .0923, P = .1602, and P = .2919, respectively). Conclusion: Both arthroscopic-assisted subpectoral biceps tenodesis combined with anterior labral repair and arthroscopic SLAP repair led to statistically and clinically significant increases in outcome scores, marked improvements in pain, and high rates of return to unrestricted active duty in military patients with type V SLAP lesions. The results of this study suggest that biceps tenodesis combined with anterior labral repair produces comparable outcomes to arthroscopic type V SLAP repair in active-duty military patients younger than 35 years.

What's New in Sports Medicine.

What's New in Sports Medicine.

Biomechanical comparison of two InternalBrace™ reinforced thumb ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction techniques.

Chronic ulnar collateral ligament ruptures of the thumb metacarpophalangeal joint are often not eligible for direct surgical repair and ligament reconstruction could be considered. Several reconstruction techniques are published, with different types of configurations and fixation methods of the tendon grafts. However, failure of the reconstruction with recurrent instability is still a problem, despite stable graft to bone fixation. Augmentation of the free tendon graft with non-resorbable suture material is gaining popularity, aiming to withstand elongation or rupture of the graft. The purpose of this study was to compare two different augmented ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction methods in a cadaver model. Ten matched pairs of cadaveric upper extremities were used. The thumbs were disarticulated at the trapezometacarpal joint and the ulnar collateral ligament was excised then reconstructed with InternalBrace™ reinforced tendon graft, which was fixed to the bones using either a Tenodesis screw or DX Swivelock® anchor. The thumbs were biomechanically tested with valgus stress, while the force and displacement were simultaneously measured and plotted. The mean (SD) load at clinical failure and maximum load were 19.4 (5.3) and 31.4 (9.5) N in the Tenodesis group, and 21.0 (10.0) and 31.4 (13.9) N in the DX SwiveLock® group, respectively. None of these differences were significant. These results are comparable with previous publications. The Tenodesis screw and the DX SwiveLock® thumb ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction with InternalBrace™ reinforced free tendon graft showed equal strength, both methods are feasible alternatives in the clinical setting.

Is biceps tenodesis necessary when performing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in patients older than 55 years?

In patients with arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, tenotomy and tenodesis are the most performed surgical procedures for the biceps long head (BLH) pathologies. Controversy continues as to which surgical procedure provides better results. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of tenotomy and tenodesis applied to the biceps long head in patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. In our study, the clinical results of 706 patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with tenotomy or tenodesis on the long biceps head were evaluated retrospectively. Rotator cuff repair patients were divided into two groups as single-row and double-row repair patients. The clinical results of patients who underwent tenotomy and tenodesis in single-row (n = 383) and double-row (n = 323) repair groups were compared. The clinical outcomes of the patients who underwent tenotomy and tenodesis without distinction between double/single-row repair were also compared. Preoperative and postoperative clinical evaluations of the patients were made with Constant Shoulder Score (CSS) and visual pain scale (VAS). The presence of the Popeye sign in the arm, tenderness in the bicipital groove, and cramping in the biceps muscle in the postoperative period was evaluated and compared among groups. Preoperative and postoperative clinical results of the patients were compared within the groups. A total of 706 patients with a mean age of 61.78 ± 20.94years and a mean follow-up period of 29.15 ± 14.28months were evaluated. The mean age of the tenodesis group (58.13 ± 8.47) was significantly lower than the tenotomy group (61.52 ± 22.58) (p < 0.05). The mean CSS and VAS mean postoperatively in the tenotomy group (n = 587) were 76.84 ± 12.74 and 2.29 ± 2.78. The postoperative mean CSS and VAS in the tenodesis group (n = 119) were 77.56 ± 11.23 and 2.64 ± 2.70. There was no statistically significant difference between the postoperative clinical scores of patients who underwent tenotomy and patients who underwent tenodesis (p > 0.05). There was no difference between the tenotomy and tenodesis groups regarding Popeye deformity (p = 0.980). Bicipital groove tenderness and cramping in the biceps muscle were significantly higher in the tenodesis group (p < 0.001, < 0.001). Tenodesis was performed in 68, and tenotomy was performed in 315 out of 383 patients who underwent single-row rotator cuff repair. Tenodesis was performed in 51, and tenotomy was performed in 272 of 334 patients who underwent double-row rotator cuff repair. When singe versus double-row groups was compared, there was no significant difference in VAS, CSS, Popeye sing, bicipital groove tenderness, or biceps muscle cramping. When tenotomy versus tenodesis was compared within single- and double-row repair groups, there was no significant difference in VAS or CSS. There was no difference between the tenotomy and tenodesis groups regarding Popeye deformity, but bicipital groove tenderness and muscle cramping were more in tenodesis groups regardless of the repair rows. The effect of tenodesis versus tenotomy for BHL pathologies in patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair was not significant for clinical scores, but bicipital groove tenderness and biceps muscle cramping were significantly higher in the tenodesis group.

Comparison of the clinical outcomes of chronic rupture, arthroscopic tenotomy and tenodesis of proximal biceps tendon

Biceps tendon disorders are substantial cause of intense shoulder pain, and thus they require a careful medical attention. We compared the clinical outcomes of chronic rupture, tenotomy and tenodesis of proximal biceps tendon of patients underwent arthroscopic shoulder surgery. We included 98 patients over 50 years-old who underwent arthroscopic surgery for rotator cuff tears and grouped as tenotomy, tenodesis and chronic rupture of biceps tendon. Preoperative and postoperative 24-months follow-up Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score and the University of California–Los Angeles (UCLA) Shoulder Scale scores were compared. Chronic biceps rupture was the most common pathology in massive rotator cuff rupture group (75.9%). As tenotomy, tenodesis and chronic rupture groups were compared in terms of VAS and UCLA score improvements (preoperative and postoperative change); tenotomy showed better outcomes and there was a statistically significant difference between tenotomy and tenodesis groups in terms of improvements in VAS and UCLA scores (p = 0.036, p = 0.010, respectively). No statistically significant difference between chronic rupture and tenodesis in terms of VAS and UCLA scores improvements were observed (p = 1.000, p = 0.250, respectively). Also, tenotomy showed superior VAS score improvement than chronic tendon rupture (p=0.024) however no statistically significant difference was observed in UCLA score improvement between tenotomy and chronic rupture (p = 0.527). According to our study, tenotomy seems to be a more appropriate surgical method than tenodesis in massive and full-thickness rotator cuff tears with severe biceps tendon degeneration, and also it is not necessary to perform tenodesis in cases with chronic biceps rupture.

Paper 26: Update On Performance And Return To Sport After Biceps Tenodesis In Professional Baseball Players

Objectives:The purpose of this study was to determine the return to sport (RTS) rate and performance upon RTS in professional baseball players who underwent biceps tenodesis. A secondary purpose was to compare the postoperative performance of the group of players who underwent biceps tenodesis to a group of matched controls.Methods:All professional baseball pitchers who underwent biceps tenodesis between 2014 and 2017 were included. Players with concomitant rotator cuff repair were excluded. Demographic and performance data (preoperative and postoperative) were recorded for each player. Performance metrics were then compared between the biceps tenodesis and matched control (no history of biceps tenodesis) groups.Results:14 players (average age 27±4 years; 12 pitchers, 2 position outfielders) were included. Most (79%) were open subpectoral tenodeses while two were arthroscopic biceps transfers, and one was an arthroscopic suprapectoral tenodesis. Fixation methods included cortical button (42%), interference screw (25%), suture anchor (25%) and drill holes (8%). Most players (79%) underwent concomitant procedures (43% underwent SLAP repairs). Among the 14 players, 2 were unable to RTS, 5 RTS but to a lower level, and 7 RTS at the same or a higher level. Thus, overall, while 86% (12/14) were able to RTS, 50% (7/14) RTS at the same or a higher level and 50% were either unable to return or returned to a lower level. Among pitchers, 100% (12/12) were able to RTS, but only 50% (6/12) were able to return to the same or a higher level. For those players who did return to play, it took 245±84 days, and their performance following RTP was unchanged and did not differ from matched controls.Conclusions:While 86% of professional baseball players returned to sport following biceps tenodesis, only 50% returned to the same or higher level. No decline in performance was noted in players who successfully returned. Open subpectoral tenodesis is the most common tenodesis technique performed on professional baseball playersUPLOAD-https://planion-client-files.s3.amazonaws.com/AOSSM/blobs/c7753b55-d658-4847-a8e7-7b70c6cad84f/1/Table_1.docx UPLOAD-https://planion-client-files.s3.amazonaws.com/AOSSM/blobs/961efbc8-aedb-4cfe-b18f-6b8c07d93ec7/1/Table_2.docx UPLOAD-https://planion-client-files.s3.amazonaws.com/AOSSM/blobs/36fbb55a-f22f-468e-a8a3-e7a29979b4b8/1/Table_3.docx None

Improvement in long head of biceps function and lower rate of biceps deformities after subpectoral tenodesis with cortical button and interference screw vs. arthroscopic tenotomy: a 4-year follow-up.

BackgroundThis study aimed to evaluate clinical, cosmetic, and strength midterm outcomes in arthroscopic biceps tenotomy and subpectoral biceps tenodesis using bicortical endobutton and interference screw.MethodsIn this retrospective study, inclusion criteria were long head of the biceps (LHB) pathologies treated either with tenotomy or an additional tenodesis. Postoperative assessment included Long Head of Biceps Score (LHBS), age-adjusted Constant-Murley Score, and Subjective Shoulder Value. Elbow flexion and forearm supination strength were measured. The presence of Popeye sign, cramps, and tenderness over the bicipital grove was evaluated. Statistical analysis of continuous variables without normal distribution was performed using Mann-Whitney U test. Grouped analysis was performed using 2-way analysis of variance. Binominal data were analyzed using chi-square test.ResultsA total of 73 patients with a mean age of 63.1 ± 9.6 years and a mean follow-up of 4.2 ± 0.5 years were included. Tenotomy was performed in 34 and tenodesis in 39 patients. Tenodesis group displayed a significantly higher LHB score (P = .0006), but no significant differences were detected for the age-adjusted Constant-Murley Score and Subjective Shoulder Value. Tenodesis group showed a significantly lower rate of Popeye deformities (P = .0007) and tenderness over the bicipital groove (P = .004). Patients from the tenotomy group with biceps deformity showed a significantly higher mean contralateral supination strength (P = .002) but no significant difference in contralateral elbow flexion compared with patients without biceps deformity. There was one (1.4%) complication in the tenotomy group (postoperative shoulder stiffness).ConclusionBoth techniques resulted in comparable outcome scores on preselected patients, with tenodesis leading to better LHB function. Tenodesis did not improve elbow flexion and forearm supination strength beyond the tenotomy; however, it reduced the frequency of biceps deformities and tenderness over the bicipital groove. Patients with a strong contralateral forearm supination strength could be at risk of developing a biceps deformity after tenotomy.

SLAP Repair Versus Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis for Isolated SLAP Type 2 Lesions in Overhead Athletes Younger Than 35 Years: Comparison of Minimum 2-Year Outcomes.

Background:It remains unclear if young overhead athletes with isolated superior labrum anterior-posterior (SLAP) type 2 lesions benefit more from SLAP repair or subpectoral biceps tenodesis.Purpose:To evaluate clinical outcomes and return to sport in overhead athletes with symptomatic SLAP type 2 lesions who underwent either biceps tenodesis or SLAP repair.Study Design:Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed in patients who underwent subpectoral biceps tenodesis (n = 14) or SLAP repair (n = 24) for the treatment of isolated type 2 SLAP lesions. All patients were aged <35 years at time of surgery, participated in overhead sports, and were at least 2 years out from surgery. Clinical outcomes were assessed with the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score; Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE) score; Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) score; and the 12-Item Short Form (SF-12) physical component score. Return to sport and patient satisfaction were documented. Clinical failures requiring revision surgery and complications were reported.Results:Preoperative baseline scores in both the tenodesis and SLAP repair groups were similar. There were no significant differences between the groups on any postoperative outcome measure: For biceps tenodesis versus SLAP repair, the ASES score was 92.7 ± 10.4 versus 89.1 ± 16.7, the SANE score was 86.2 ± 13.7 versus 83.0 ± 24.1, the QuickDASH score was 10.0 ± 12.7 versus 9.0 ± 14.3, and SF-12 was 51.2 ± 7.5 versus 52.8 ± 7.7. No group difference in return-to-sports rate (85% vs 79%; P = .640) was noted. More patients in the tenodesis group (80%) reported modifying their sporting/recreational activity postoperatively because of weakness compared with patients in the SLAP repair group (15%; P = .022). One patient in each group progressed to surgery for persistent postoperative stiffness, and 1 patient in the tenodesis group had a postoperative complication related to the index surgery.Conclusion:Both subpectoral biceps tenodesis and SLAP repair provided excellent clinical results for the treatment of isolated SLAP type 2 lesions, with a high rate of return to overhead sports and a low failure rate, in a young and high-demanding patient cohort. More patients reported modifying their sporting/recreational activity because of weakness after subpectoral tenodesis.

Arthroscopic Modified Double-Row Biceps Tenodesis versus Labral Repair for the Treatment of Isolated Type II SLAP Lesions in Non-Overhead Athletes.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the postoperative efficacy and the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic modified double‐row biceps tenodesis versus labral repair.MethodsA retrospective study was conducted in 56 patients with isolated type II superior labrum anterior and posterior (SLAP) lesions from March 2015 to November 2018. Thirty patients (male:female = 17:13) were treated with labral repair, and 26 patients (male:female = 15:11) were treated with modified double‐row biceps tenodesis. The average age of the labral repair group and the modified double‐row biceps tenodesis group were 42.8 ± 10.6 and 40.9 ± 10.2 years, respectively. Pre‐ and postoperative assessments with the visual analog scale (VAS), University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores were compared between the two treatment groups. Additional outcome measures included patient satisfaction, the time to return to previous activities, workers' compensation status, and postoperative complications.ResultsAt a 2‐year follow‐up, the tenodesis group showed significant differences in postoperative VAS (1.5 to 1.8, respectively; p = 0.008), patient satisfaction (92.3% vs. 46.7%, p < 0.001), and recovery time to return to their previous activities (6.8 ± 1.8 vs. 8.1 ± 1.5, p = 0.007) compared to the labral repair group; however, there was no significant difference in postoperative ASES and UCLA scores between the two groups. Additionally, one patient in the tenodesis group developed persistent postoperative stiffness, which was resolved by conservative treatment. In the labral repair group, two patients presented with persistent postoperative night pain, three developed persistent postoperative stiffness, and two required a subsequent capsular release.ConclusionsCompared with the labral repair group, the arthroscopic modified double‐row biceps tenodesis showed more encouraging postoperative pain reduction, earlier recovery to previous activities, and higher patient satisfaction.

Update on Performance and Return to Sport After Biceps Tenodesis in Professional Baseball Players.

Background:Bicipital disorders are common among overhead athletes, especially professional baseball players. The ideal treatment for bicipital problems in professional baseball players is unknown.Purpose/Hypothesis:The purpose was to determine the return-to-sport (RTS) rate and performance after RTS in professional baseball players who underwent biceps tenodesis. It was hypothesized that there will be a high RTS rate in this population, with no difference between the biceps tenodesis and control groups in the RTS rate or performance.Study Design:Case series; Level of evidence, 4.Methods:All professional Major League Baseball players who underwent biceps tenodesis between 2014 and 2017 were included. Players with concomitant rotator cuff repair were excluded. Demographic and performance data (preoperative and postoperative) were recorded for each player. Performance metrics were then compared between players with biceps tenodesis and matched controls (no history of biceps tenodesis).Results:Included were 14 players (mean age, 27 ± 4 years; 12 pitchers, 2 position outfielders). Most surgeries (79%) were open subpectoral tenodeses, 2 were arthroscopic biceps transfers, and 1 was an arthroscopic suprapectoral tenodesis. Fixation methods included cortical button (42%), interference screw (25%), suture anchor (25%), and drill holes (8%). Most players (79%) underwent concomitant procedures (43% underwent superior labral anterior-posterior repairs). While 86% (12/14) were able to RTS, 50% (7/14) returned at the same or a higher level, and 50% of the whole study were either unable to return or returned to a lower level. Among pitchers, 100% (12/12) were able to RTS, but only 50% (6/12) were able to return to the same or a higher level. For those players who did RTS, it took 245 ± 84 days, and their performance after RTS was unchanged and did not differ from that of matched controls.Conclusion:Open subpectoral tenodesis was the most common tenodesis technique performed on professional baseball players. While 86% of players returned to sport after biceps tenodesis, only 50% returned to the same or higher level. No decline in performance was noted in players who returned successfully.

Biceps tenotomy or tenodesis in association with rotator cuff repair: is there an influence on functional results? A retrospective cohort study.

Instability or tears of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) may be present in more than 35% of rotator cuff repairs (RCR). To compare clinical results from patients undergoing arthroscopic RCR, according to the procedure performed at the LHBT. Retrospective cohort study designed at the shoulder and elbow clinic of Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital das Clinicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brazil. Functional results among patients were compared using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) scales, according to the LHBT approach adopted: no procedure, tenotomy or tenodesis. We evaluated 306 shoulders (289 patients): 133 underwent no procedure at the LHBT, 77 tenotomy and 96 tenodesis. The ASES scale at 24 months showed no difference (P = 0.566) between the groups without LHBT procedure (median 90.0; interquartile range, IQR 29), tenotomy (median 90.0; IQR 32.1) or tenodesis (median 94.4; IQR 22.7); nor did the UCLA scale (median 33; IQR 7 versus median 31; IQR 8 versus median 33; IQR 5, respectively, P = 0.054). The groups differed in the preoperative functional assessment according to the ASES and UCLA scale, such that the tenodesis group started from higher values. However, there was no difference in pre and postoperative scores between the groups. Tenodesis or tenotomy of the LHBT, in the sample analyzed, did not influence the clinical results from RCR, as assessed using the ASES and UCLA scales.

A Comparison of Outcomes of ‘Extensor Carpi Ulnaris Tenodesis’ versus ‘No Tenodesis’ after Resection of the Distal Ulna in Patients with Giant Cell Tumor

Background: One of the methods of stabilizing the stump of the ulna following resection of the distal ulna is tenodesis of the extensor carpi ulnaris (ECU). Some studies have recommended stabilization, whereas others have not found it useful. Most of these studies have a mix of different pathologies and often do not have a control group. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of ECU tenodesis versus no tenodesis after resection of the distal ulna in patients with grade III giant cell tumor (GCT) of the distal ulna. Methods: The retrospective study included 10 patients with Campanacci grade III GCT of the distal ulna treated by resection of the distal ulna between 2014 and 2019. Patients were stratified into two groups based on whether they underwent ECU tenodesis (n = 5) or no tenodesis (n = 5). The patients were assessed at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months for complications and outcomes using the Mayo wrist score (MWS) and the revised musculoskeletal tumor society score (MSTS). Results: The MWS and the MSTS were significantly better in the ECU tenodesis group at 6 weeks. At 6 months, MWS was similar in both groups, but MSTS continued to be significantly better in ECU tenodesis group. At 12 months, both groups reported similar MWS and MSTS. There were no recurrences in either groups. One patient in the ECU tenodesis group developed ECU tendonitis that resolved with conservative treatment. Conclusions: The outcomes of ECU tenodesis were better in the short term (6 months), although both groups reported similar outcomes at 12 months. Level of Evidence: Level III (Therapeutic).

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.