RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Biceps tenodesis is a surgical treatment for both superior labral anterior-posterior (SLAP) tears and long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) abnormalities. Biceps tenodesis can be performed either above or below the pectoralis major tendon with arthroscopic or open techniques. PURPOSE: To analyze the outcomes and complications comparing primary arthroscopic suprapectoral versus open subpectoral biceps tenodesis for either SLAP tears or LHBT disorders. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A search strategy based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Meta-Analyses) protocol was used to include 18 articles (471 patients) from a total of 974 articles identified. Overall exclusion criteria included the following: non-English language, non-full text, biceps tenodesis with concomitant rotator cuff repair, review articles, meta-analyses, and case reports. Data were extracted and analyzed according to procedure type and tenodesis location: arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (295 patients) versus open subpectoral bicepts tenodesis (176 patients). RESULTS: For arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis, the weighted mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score was 90.0 (97 patients) and the weighted mean Constant score was 88.7 (108 patients); for open subpectoral biceps tenodesis, the mean ASES score was 91.1 (199 patients) and mean Constant score was 84.7 (65 patients). Among the 176 patients who underwent arthroscopic biceps tenodesis, there was an overall complication rate of 9.1%. Among the 295 patients who underwent open biceps tenodesis, there was an overall complication rate of 13.5%. Both residual pain (5.7% vs 4.7%, respectively) and Popeye deformity (1.7% vs 1.0%, respectively) rates were similar between the groups. Open subpectoral biceps tenodesis had higher reoperation (3.0% vs 0.0%, respectively), wound complication (1.0% vs 0.0%, respectively), and nerve injury (0.7% vs 0.0%, respectively) rates postoperatively. A meta-analysis of 3 studies demonstrated that both methods had similar ASES scores (P = .36) as well as all-cause complication rates (odds ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.13-4.48]; P = .26). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis for either SLAP tears or LHBT abnormalities had similar outcome scores and complication rates compared with those undergoing open subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Additionally, both residual pain and Popeye deformity rates were similar between the 2 groups.
RESUMO
A cell-sourced biological pacemaker is a promising therapeutic approach for sick sinus syndrome (SSS) or severe atrial ventricular block (AVB). Adipose tissue-derived stem cells (ATSCs), which are optimal candidate cells for possible use in regenerative therapy for acute or chronic myocardial injury, have the potential to differentiate into spontaneous beating cardiomyocytes. However, the pacemaker characteristics of the beating cells need to be confirmed, and little is known about the underlying differential mechanism. In this study, we found that brown adipose tissue-derived stem cells (BATSCs) in mice could differentiate into spontaneous beating cells in 15% FBS Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM) without additional treatment. Subsequently, we provide additional evidence, including data regarding ultrastructure, protein expression, electrophysiology, and pharmacology, to support the differentiation of BATSCs into a cardiac pacemaker phenotype during the course of early cultivation. Furthermore, we found that silencing Tbx18, a key transcription factor in the development of pacemaker cells, terminated the differentiation of BATSCs into a pacemaker phenotype, suggesting that Tbx18 is required to direct BATSCs toward a cardiac pacemaker fate. The expression of Tbx3 and shox2, the other two important transcription factors in the development of pacemaker cells, was decreased by silencing Tbx18, which suggests that Tbx18 mediates the differentiation of BATSCs into a pacemaker phenotype via these two downstream transcription factors.