Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Subpectoral versus suprapectoral biceps tenodesis yields similar clinical outcomes: a systematic review.
Belk, John W; Thon, Stephen G; Hart, John; McCarty, Eric C; McCarty, Eric C.
Afiliação
  • Belk JW; Department of Orthopaedics, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, USA.
  • Thon SG; Department of Orthopaedics, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, USA.
  • Hart J; Department of Orthopedics, University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
  • McCarty EC; Department of Orthopaedics, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, USA.
  • McCarty EC; Department of Orthopedics, University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
J ISAKOS ; 6(6): 356-362, 2021 11.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34016736
ABSTRACT
IMPORTANCE Arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (ABT) and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis (OBT) are two surgical treatment options for relief of long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) pathology and superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) tears. There is insufficient knowledge regarding the clinical superiority of one technique over the other.

OBJECTIVE:

To systematically review the literature in order to compare the clinical outcomes and safety of ABT and OBT for treatment of LHBT or SLAP pathology. EVIDENCE REVIEW A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Embase to identify studies that compared the clinical efficacy of ABT versus OBT. The search phrase used was (bicep OR biceps OR biceps brachii OR long head of biceps brachii OR biceps tendinopathy) AND (tenodesis). Patients were assessed based on the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score, the visual analogue scale, the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, Constant-Murley Score, clinical failure, range of motion, bicipital groove pain and strength. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed, and both the Cochrane Collaboration's and Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) risk of bias tools were used to evaluate risk of bias.

FINDINGS:

Eight studies (one level I, seven level III) met inclusion criteria, including 326 patients undergoing ABT and 381 patients undergoing OBT. No differences were found in treatment failure rates or patient-reported outcome scores between groups in any study. One study found OBT patients to experience significantly increased range of shoulder forward flexion when compared with ABT patients (p=0.049). Two studies found ABT patients to experience significantly more postoperative stiffness when compared with OBT patients (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS:

Patients undergoing ABT and OBT can be expected to experience similar improvements in clinical outcomes at latest follow-up without differences treatment failure or functional performance. ABT patients may experience an increased incidence of stiffness in the early postoperative period. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Tenodese Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Tenodese Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article