While a vast body of literature exists describing biceps tenodesis techniques and evaluating the biomechanical aspects of tenodesis locations or various implants, little literature presents useful clinical outcomes to guide surgeons in their decision to perform a particular method of tenodesis.
Purpose/Hypothesis:
To compare the clinical outcomes of open subpectoral biceps tenodesis (OSPBT) and arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (ASPBT). Our null hypothesis was that both methods would yield satisfactory results with regard to shoulder and biceps function, postoperative shoulder scores, pain relief, and complications.
Study Design:
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
Methods:
Patients who underwent either ASPBT or OSPBT for isolated superior labrum or long head of the biceps lesions with a minimum follow-up of 2 years were evaluated with several validated clinical outcome measures and physical examinations including range of motion and strength.
Results:
Between 2007 and 2011, a total of 82 patients met all inclusion and exclusion criteria, which included 32 patients with ASPBT and 50 patients with OSPBT; 27 of 32 (84.4%) patients with ASPBT and 35 of 50 (70.0%) patients with OSPBT completed clinical follow-up. Overall outcomes for both procedures were satisfactory. No significant differences were noted in postoperative Constant-Murley (ASPBT: 90.7; OSPBT: 91.8; P = .755), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASPBT: 90.1; OSPBT: 88.4; P = .735), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (ASPBT: 87.4; OSPBT: 86.8; P = .901), Simple Shoulder Test (ASPBT: 10.4; OSPBT: 10.6; P = .762), long head of the biceps (ASPBT: 91.6; OSPBT: 93.6; P = .481), or Veterans RAND 36-Item Health Survey (ASPBT: 81.0; OSPBT: 80.1; P = .789) scores. No significant range of motion or strength differences was noted between the procedures.
Conclusion:
Both ASPBT and OSPBT yield excellent clinical and functional results for the management of isolated superior labrum or long head of the biceps lesions. No significant differences in clinical outcomes as determined by several validated outcome measures were found between the 2 tenodesis methods, nor were any significant range of motion or strength deficits noted at a minimum 2 years postoperatively.
AhmadCSElAttracheNS. Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis. Orthop Clin North Am. 2003;34(4):499-506.
2.
AhrensPMBoileauP. The long head of biceps and associated tendinopathy. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89(8):1001-1009.
3.
BarberAFieldLDRyuR. Biceps tendon and superior labrum injuries: decision-marking. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(8):1844-1855.
4.
BeckerDACofieldRH. Tenodesis of the long head of the biceps brachii for chronic bicipital tendinitis: long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989;71(3):376-381.
5.
BerlemannUBayleyI. Tenodesis of the long head of biceps brachii in the painful shoulder: improving results in the long term. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1995;4(6):429-435.
6.
BoileauPBaqueFValerioL. Isolated arthroscopic biceps tenotomy or tenodesis improves symptoms in patients with massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):747-757.
7.
BoileauPKrishnanSGCosteJS. Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis: a new technique using bioabsorbable interference screw fixation. Arthroscopy. 2002;18(9):1002-1012.
8.
BoileauPNeytonL. Arthroscopic tenodesis for lesions of the long head of the biceps. Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2005;17(6):601-623.
9.
BoileauPParratteSChuinardC. Arthroscopic treatment of isolated type II SLAP lesions: biceps tenodesis as an alternative to reinsertion. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(5):929-936.
10.
BusconiBBDeAngelisNGuerreroPE. The proximal biceps tendon: tricks and pearls. Sports Med Arthrosc. 2008;16(3):187-194.
ChecchiaSLDoneuxPSMiyazakiAN. Biceps tenodesis associated with arthroscopic repair of rotator cuff tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(2):138-144.
13.
ChungSWHuongCBKimSH. Shoulder stiffness after rotator cuff repair: risk factors and influence on outcome. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(2):290-300.
14.
ConstantCRMurleyAH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;214:160-164.
15.
DavidTSSchildhornJC. Arthroscopic suprapectoral tenodesis of the long head biceps: reproducing an anatomic length-tension relationship. Arthrosc Tech. 2012;1(1):e127-e132.
16.
DinesDWarrenRFInglisAE. Surgical treatment of lesions of the long head of the biceps. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982;164:165-171.
17.
ElkousyHAFluhmeDJO’ConnorDP. Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis using the percutaneous, intra-articular trans-tendon technique: preliminary results. Orthopedics. 2005;28(11):1316-1319.
18.
ElserFBraunSDewingCB. Anatomy, function, injuries, and treatment of the long head of the biceps brachii tendon. Arthroscopy. 2011;27(4):581-592.
19.
FranceschiFLongoUGRuzziniL. No advantages in repairing a type II superior labrum anterior and posterior (SLAP) lesion when associated with rotator cuff repair in patients over age 50: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(2):247-253.
20.
FranceschiFLongoUGRuzziniL. Soft tissue tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon associated to the Roman Bridge repair. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008;9:78.
21.
FroimsonAI, O I. Keyhole tenodesis of biceps origin at the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1975;112:245-249.
22.
FrostAZafarMSMaffulliN. Tenotomy versus tenodesis in the management of pathologic lesions of the tendon of the long head of the biceps brachii. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(4):828-833.
GillTJMcIrvinEMairSD. Results of biceps tenotomy for treatment of pathology of the long head of the biceps brachii. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(3):247-249.
25.
GodfreyJHammanRLowensteinS. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the simple shoulder test: psychometric properties by age and injury type. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(3):260-267.
26.
GolishSRCaldwellPE3rdMillerMD. Interference screw versus suture anchor fixation for subpectoral tenodesis of the proximal biceps tendon: a cadaveric study. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(10):1103-1108.
27.
HapaOGunayCKomurcuE. Biceps tenodesis with interference screw: cyclic testing of different techniques. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010;18(12):1779-1784.
28.
HitchcockHHBechtolCO. Painful shoulder; observations on the role of the tendon of the long head of the biceps brachii in its causation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1948;30(2):263-273.
29.
HsuARGhodadraNSProvencherMT. Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: a review of clinical outcomes and biomechanical results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(2):326-332.
30.
HubertyDPSchoolfieldJDBradyPC. Incidence and treatment of postoperative stiffness following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Arthroscopy. 2009;25(8):880-890.
31.
JarrettCDMcClellandWBJrXerogeanesJW. Minimally invasive proximal biceps tenodesis: an anatomical study for optimal placement and safe surgical technique. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(3):477-480.
32.
JayamoorthyTFieldJRCostiJJ. Biceps tenodesis: a biomechanical study of fixation methods. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004;13(2):160-164.
33.
KazisLEMillerDRClarkJA. Improving the response choices on the veterans SF-36 health survey role functioning scales: results from the Veterans Health Study. J Ambul Care Manage. 2004;27(3):263-280.
34.
KazisLEMillerDRSkinnerKM. Patient-reported measures of health: the Veterans Health Study. J Ambul Care Manage. 2004;27(1):70-83.
35.
KellyAMDrakosMCFealyS. Arthroscopic release of the long head of the biceps tendon: functional outcome and clinical results. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(2):208-213.
KohKHAhnJHKimSM. Treatment of biceps tendon lesions in the setting of rotator cuff tears: prospective cohort study of tenotomy versus tenodesis. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(8):1584-1590.
40.
LafosseLShahAAButlerRB. Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis to supraspinatus tendon: technical note. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2011;40(7):345-347.
41.
LoIKBurkhartSS. Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis using a bioabsorbable interference screw. Arthroscopy. 2004;20(1):85-95.
42.
LuttonDMGrusonKIHarrisonAK. Where to tenodese the biceps: proximal or distal?Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(4):1050-1055.
43.
MazzoccaADBicosJSantangeloS. The biomechanical evaluation of four fixation techniques for proximal biceps tenodesis. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(11):1296-1306.
44.
MazzoccaADCoteMPArcieroCL. Clinical outcomes after subpectoral biceps tenodesis with an interference screw. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(10):1922-1929.
45.
MazzoccaADRiosCGRomeoAA. Subpectoral biceps tenodesis with interference screw fixation. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(7):896.
46.
MicheleAAKruegerFJ. Tenodesis of biceps tendons; a preliminary report. Surgery. 1951;29(4):555-559.
47.
MichenerLAMcClurePWSennettBJ. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, patient self-report section: reliability, validity, and responsiveness. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11(6):587-594.
48.
MillettPJSandersBGobezieR. Interference screw vs. suture anchor fixation for open subpectoral biceps tenodesis: does it matter?BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008;9:121.
49.
MorosCLevineWNAhmadCS. Suture anchor and percutaneous intra-articular transtendon biceps tenodesis. Sports Med Arthrosc. 2008;16(3):177-179.
50.
NhoSJFrankRMReiffSN. Arthroscopic repair of anterosuperior rotator cuff tears combined with open biceps tenodesis. Arthroscopy. 2010;26(12):1667-1674.
51.
NhoSJReiffSNVermaNN. Complications associated with subpectoral biceps tenodesis: low rates of incidence following surgery. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(5):764-768.
52.
NhoSJStraussEJLenartBA. Long head of the biceps tendinopathy: diagnosis and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2010;18(11):645-656.
53.
NordKDSmithGBMauckBM. Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis using suture anchors through the subclavian portal. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(2):248-252.
54.
OhJHJoKHKimWS. Comparative evaluation of the measurement properties of various shoulder outcome instruments. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(6):1161-1168.
55.
OsbahrDCDiamondABSpeerKP. The cosmetic appearance of the biceps muscle after long-head tenotomy versus tenodesis. Arthroscopy. 2002;18(5):483-487.
56.
OzalayMAkpinarSKaraeminogullariO. Mechanical strength of four different biceps tenodesis techniques. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(8):992-998.
57.
PappDFSkelleyNWSutterEG. Biomechanical evaluation of open suture anchor fixation versus interference screw for biceps tenodesis. Orthopedics. 2011;34(7):e275-e278.
58.
PatzerTRundicJMBobrowitschE. Biomechanical comparison of arthroscopically performable techniques for suprapectoral biceps tenodesis. Arthroscopy. 2011;27(8):1036-1047.
59.
PatzerTSantoGOlenderGD. Suprapectoral or subpectoral position for biceps tenodesis: biomechanical comparison of four different techniques in both positions. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(1):116-125.
60.
PinzurMSHopkinsGE. Biceps tenodesis for painful inferior subluxation of the shoulder in adult acquired hemiplegia. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986;206:100-103.
61.
ProvencherMTFrankRMMacianD. An analysis of shoulder outcomes scores in 275 consecutive patients: disease-specific correlation across multiple shoulder conditions. Mil Med. 2012;177(8):975-982.
62.
ProvencherMTLeClereLERomeoAA. Subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Sports Med Arthrosc. 2008;16(3):170-176.
63.
RichardsDPBurkhartSS. Arthroscopic-assisted biceps tenodesis for ruptures of the long head of biceps brachii: the cobra procedure. Arthroscopy. 2004;20(Suppl 2):201-207.
64.
RichardsDPBurkhartSS. A biomechanical analysis of two biceps tenodesis fixation techniques. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(7):861-866.
SandersBLaveryKPPenningtonS. Clinical success of biceps tenodesis with and without release of the transverse humeral ligament. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(1):66-71.
67.
ScheibelMSchroderRJChenJ. Arthroscopic soft tissue tenodesis versus bony fixation anchor tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(5):1046-1052.
68.
SekiyaJKElkousyHARodoskyMW. Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis using the percutaneous intra-articular transtendon technique. Arthroscopy. 2003;19(10):1137-1141.
69.
ShankJRSingletonSBBraunS. A comparison of forearm supination and elbow flexion strength in patients with long head of the biceps tenotomy or tenodesis. Arthroscopy. 2011;27(1):9-16.
70.
SkareOSchroderCPReikerasO. Efficacy of labral repair, biceps tenodesis, and diagnostic arthroscopy for SLAP lesions of the shoulder: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010;11:228.
71.
SlabaughMAFrankRMVan ThielGS. Biceps tenodesis with interference screw fixation: a biomechanical comparison of screw length and diameter. Arthroscopy. 2011;27(2):161-166.
72.
SlenkerNRLawsonKCiccottiMG. Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: clinical outcomes. Arthroscopy. 2012;28(4):576-582.
73.
TangariMCarboneSGalloM. Long head of the biceps tendon rupture in professional wrestlers: treatment with a mini-open tenodesis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(3):409-413.
74.
TashjianRZDeloachJGreenA. Minimal clinically important differences in ASES and simple shoulder test scores after nonoperative treatment of rotator cuff disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(2):296-303.
75.
VermaNNDrakosMO’BrienSJ. Arthroscopic transfer of the long head biceps to the conjoint tendon. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(6):764.
76.
WalchGEdwardsTBBoulahiaA. Arthroscopic tenotomy of the long head of the biceps in the treatment of rotator cuff tears: clinical and radiographic results of 307 cases. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(3):238-246.
77.
WernerBCPehlivanHCHartJM. Increased incidence of postoperative stiffness after arthroscopic compared with open biceps tenodesis [published online May 22, 2014]. Arthroscopy. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2014.03.024.
WilliamsGNGangelTJArcieroRA. Comparison of the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation method and two shoulder rating scales: outcomes measures after shoulder surgery. Am J Sports Med. 1999;27(2):214-221.
80.
WittsteinJRQueenRAbbeyA. Isokinetic strength, endurance, and subjective outcomes after biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: a postoperative study. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(4):857-865.
81.
WolfRSZhengNWeichelD. Long head biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: a cadaveric biomechanical analysis. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(2):182-185.
82.
ZhangALKreulenCNgoSS. Demographic trends in arthroscopic SLAP repair in the United States. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(5):1144-1147.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
