Arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis provided earlier shoulder function restoration compared with open subpectoral biceps tenodesis during the recovery phase.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the clinical outcomes of open subpectoral biceps tenodesis and arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis for symptomatic biceps tenosynovitis. Although both techniques have pros and cons, no studies have compared clinical and functional outcomes during the recovery phase. Previous studies show that suprapectoral tenodesis has a higher probability of Popeye deformity and postoperative bicipital pain and stiffness, whereas subpectoral tenodesis has a higher risk of nerve complications and wound infections. This study aimed for clinical comparison between arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis. METHODS: This study is a retrospective review of institutional records of patients with biceps tendinitis who underwent open or arthroscopic biceps tenodesis. Surgical indications included biceps tenosynovitis, biceps partial tear, and biceps pulley lesion. Patients with prior shoulder surgery, preoperative shoulder stiffness, or full-thickness tear of rotator cuff were excluded. Tenodesis was considered when the pain recurs within 3 months despite conservative treatment including at least 2 triamcinolone injections on the biceps tendon sheath. Visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain, presence of the night pain, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Constant score, and range of motion were assessed preoperatively at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively and the last follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 72 patients (33 with arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodeses and 39 with open subpectoral biceps tenodeses) were included in analysis. At postoperative 6 months, lower VAS score (0.4 ± 0.8 vs. 1.7 ± 1.9, P < .001), and the presence of the night pain (2 [6%] vs. 14 [36%], P = .002), ASES score (89.6 ± 9.2 vs. 81.4 ± 14.6, P = .006), and Constant score (89.4 ± 5.6 vs. 82.0 ± 12.5, P = .003) compared with the subpectoral group. The mean number of postoperative steroid injections for pain control in the subpectoral group (0.51 ± 0.80) was significantly higher than that in the suprapectoral group (0.18 ± 0.40) (P = .031). However, postoperative clinical outcomes were restored similar between the 2 groups at 12 months and the last follow-up. DISCUSSION: Arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis performed statistically better than the subpectoral biceps tenodesis for the VAS, ASES, night pain, and Constant score at postoperative 6 months. However, only night pain and the Constant score showed differences that exceeded minimum clinically important difference during the recovery phase. At postoperative 12 and 24 months, biceps tenodesis provided satisfactory clinical outcomes and pain relief regardless of the fixation technique and suture anchor location.

No clinical difference in outcomes between inlay and onlay arthroscopic biceps tenodesis techniques during rotator cuff repair.

BACKGROUND: Both inlay and onlay arthroscopic biceps tenodesis (ABT) are common procedures performed during rotator cuff repair. The inlay method involves creating a bone socket in the bicipital groove to secure the long head of the biceps tendon using an interference screw. The onlay method utilizes a suture anchor to secure the long head of the biceps tendon on the surface of the bicipital groove. Little is known on the long-term differences in patient-reported outcomes between these 2 techniques. The primary purpose of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes of inlay vs. onlay ABT with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Secondary aims were to evaluate the impact of rotator cuff tear size on outcomes and compare rates of complications between the 2 techniques. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed to identify patients who had an ABT during a full-thickness rotator cuff repair. Any symptom specific to the biceps were noted, including pain and cramping, Popeye deformity, or revision surgery. Complication rates were compared between groups. The visual analog scale pain score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and Veteran's RAND-12 score (VR-12) scores were compared at 2 years. The impact of rotator cuff tear size was analyzed by categorizing into small/medium or large/massive based on operative reports and arthroscopic images. RESULTS: There were 165 patients identified (106 in the inlay group and 59 in the onlay group). No revision surgeries were performed secondary to the biceps tendon in either group. Eleven patients (10%) in the inlay group complained of biceps pain or cramping compared to 2 patients (3%) in the onlay group (P = .11). One Popeye deformity was noted in each group (P = .67). No significant differences were found between groups for visual analog scale (P = .41), ASES functional (P = .61), ASES index (P = .91), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (P = .09), VR-12 Physical Component Score (P = .77), or VR-12 Mental Component Score (P = .09). Rotator cuff tear size within the groups also did not demonstrate statistical significance. CONCLUSION: No clinical differences or complications were found at minimum 2-year follow-up between inlay and onlay ABT in patients undergoing rotator cuff repair when controlling for tear size. The clinical relevance suggests either technique is effective and can be based on surgeon preference.

Biomechanical Comparisons of All-Suture Suspensory Button versus Interference Screw for Inlay Subpectoral Bicep tenodesis.

BACKGROUND: All-suture buttons (ASB) 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 versus IS for inlay subpectoral biceps tendon tenodesis in a human cadaveric model. METHODS: 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 5 N for 2 minutes, followed with a cyclic loading test from 5 to 70 N for 500 load cycles. Then the load-to-failure test was performed. Afterwards, 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. RESULTS: No difference in stiffness was observed between the two groups (ASB=27.4 ± 3.5 N/mm vs IS= 29.7 ± 3.0 N/mm; P=.270). Cyclic displacement was significantly greater in the ASB group (6.8 ± 2.6 mm) than the IS group (3.8 ± 1.1 mm; 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 ± 1.6 mm) 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 ± 285.1 N vs 2086.4 ± 296.1 N; P=.046) and larger displacement (17.8 ± 2.8mm vs 14.1± 2.8 mm; P=.027) before fracture. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Long-term patient-reported outcomes of open subpectoral biceps tenodesis with cortical button fixation.

BACKGROUND: Open subpectoral biceps tenodesis (OSBT) with cortical button fixation has been shown to deliver acceptable results in the short and intermediate term for long head of the biceps (LHB) pathology with the benefit of smaller bone tunnel diameter and a reduced risk of postoperative humeral shaft fracture. The primary purpose of this study was to determine whether OSBT with cortical button fixation results in significant improvements in patient reported outcomes (PROs) from pre-operative to long-term final follow-up. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent OSBT with cortical button fixation at a single institution between the years of 2012 and 2014 was conducted and PROs were collected in the intermediate (> 2 years follow-up) and long term (> 9 years follow-up). PROs were measured pre-operatively, at intermediate follow-up, and at long-term follow-up using three validated questionnaires: American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score, and Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS). Patients were additionally asked at final follow-up if they would undergo the same procedure again if they needed it. RESULTS: Twenty-nine (29) patients with a mean age of 51.16 ± 9.06 years at the time of surgery were included in the study at final follow-up. Mean final follow-up time was 10.2 ± 0.5 years (range: 9.2-11.1 years). All PROs (ASES, OSS, and DASH) demonstrated statistically significant improvements from pre-operative to final follow-up with p < 0.01 for each. The proportions of patients exceeding established values for minimum clinically important difference (MCID) were 96.55%, 93.10%, and 75.86% for ASES, OSS, and DASH respectively. Only one patient had required re-operation as of final follow-up. None experienced humeral fractures post-operatively. A significant majority (89.66%; p < 0.01) of patients reported that they would undergo the same procedure again if they needed it. Fifty-three (53) patients were included in the study at intermediate follow-up with a mean follow-up time of 3.5 ± 1.4 years (range: 2-5.3 years). There were no statistically significant differences in any of the PRO measures from intermediate to long-term follow-up. CONCLUSION: This study reported a minimum 9-year follow-up of patients undergoing OSBT with cortical button fixation for the management of LHBT pathology in the setting of concomitant shoulder procedures. All patients had significantly improved functional outcomes assessed with ASES, OSS, and DASH and no obvious differences in median group scores were found between patients assessed at intermediate (mean 3.5 years) and final (mean 10.2 years) follow-up. No infections, fractures, or fixation failures were reported.

Clinical outcomes and return to play in softball players following SLAP repair or biceps tenodesis.

BACKGROUND: Shoulder pain due to labral tears and biceps tendonitis is commonly found in softball players. Surgical options include labral repair and biceps tenodesis. Although past studies are limited by heterogeneous study groups from multiple sports, this is the first study that assesses clinical outcomes and return to play rates for fast-pitch softball players. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes and return to play for fast-pitch softball players treated for a superior labrum anterior posterior (SLAP) tear and recalcitrant biceps tendonitis with a biceps tenodesis compared with a traditional SLAP repair. We hypothesized that the biceps tenodesis would have comparable outcomes with a faster return to play compared with SLAP repair. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis on fast-pitch softball players treated surgically for SLAP tear, recalcitrant biceps tendonitis, or a combination between 2001 and 2019 at our institution. Inclusion criteria were fast-pitch softball players who underwent biceps tenodesis or a SLAP repair with greater than 2-year follow-up. Exclusion criteria involved slow-pitch softball players, patients with less than 2-year follow-up, and patients who had undergone concomitant procedures on the ipsilateral shoulder at the time of SLAP repair or biceps tenodesis. Follow-up was either self-reported through OBERD, a patient-reported outcomes (PRO)-managing software, or achieved over the phone. Follow-up data included American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form score, Andrews Carson Score, Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic Shoulder and Elbow Score, Numeric Rating Scale for Pain, and our institution-specific return-to-play questionnaire. We statistically compared players who underwent biceps tenodesis or a SLAP repair, and compared pitchers with position players using Student t tests and Fisher exact test with statistical significance determined to be P < .05. RESULTS: From 60 eligible patients identified, follow-up outcome data were successfully captured for 47 (78%). Of the 18 SLAP repair patients, 17 (94%) returned to full competition at an average of 7.9 months. Of the 29 patients who underwent biceps tenodesis, 27 (93%) returned to full competition at an average of 7.1 months. Statistical analysis of PRO scores for each group found no significant differences between any of the measures used to evaluate patient outcomes, including no statistical difference in pitchers compared with position players. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, this study demonstrated comparable outcomes between SLAP repairs and biceps tenodesis procedures among our study group of fast-pitch softball players. There was no significant difference between RTP times between the 2 groups.

The role of the long head of the biceps tendon in posterior shoulder stabilization during forward flexion.

BACKGROUND: The role of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) in glenohumeral stability is not fully understood. Most objects are lifted in the sagittal plane with forward flexion, which stresses the posterior aspect of the unconstrained glenohumeral joint. Determining the mechanism by which the shoulder maintains stability with functional motions is important to understanding the pathoanatomy of degenerative shoulders. Our hypothesis was that the LHBT resists posterior translation of the humeral head (HH) during forward flexion by tensioning the posterior capsuloligamentous complex. METHODS: Ten fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were tested using an established shoulder simulator that loads the LHBT, rotator cuff, and deltoid tendons through a system of pulleys. A motion tracking system recorded glenohumeral translations with an accuracy of ±0.2 mm. In each subject, the scapula was fixed and the humerus was tested in 6 positions: 30° and 60° of glenohumeral forward flexion at (1) maximum internal rotation (IR), (2) neutral rotation, and (3) maximum external rotation (ER). The deltoid was loaded with 100 N, and the infraspinatus and subscapularis were loaded with 22 N each. The difference in glenohumeral translation was calculated at each position comparing the LHBT loaded with 45 N or unloaded. RESULTS: At 30° of glenohumeral forward flexion, unloading the LHBT increased HH posterior translation by 2.5 mm (±0.9 mm; P < .001), 1.7 mm (±1.0 mm; P < .001), and 1.0 mm (±0.9 mm; P = .01) at maximum ER, neutral rotation, and maximum IR, respectively. At 60° of glenohumeral forward flexion, unloading the LHBT increased HH posterior translation by 2.8 mm (±1.2 mm; P < .001), 2.4 mm (±1.6 mm; P < .001), and 1.7 mm (±1.4 mm; P < .001) at maximum ER, neutral rotation, and maximum IR, respectively. CONCLUSION: LHBT loading resists posterior translation of the HH during forward flexion. These data support the role of the LHBT as a posterior stabilizer of the shoulder, specifically when a person is carrying objects in front of them. Further work is needed to determine if unloading the LHBT, as is done with biceps tenotomy or tenodesis, may eventually lead to posterior labral pathology, or to the posterior glenoid wear commonly seen with osteoarthritis.

Arthroscopic Pan-Capsular and Transverse Humeral Ligament Release with Biceps Tenodesis for Patients with Refractory Frozen Shoulder.

Arthroscopic capsular release allows direct visualization and release of inflamed tissues in refractory frozen shoulder. The reticular neural network in the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) and nerve endings of the transverse humeral ligament (THL) might be responsible for shoulder pain. We hypothesized that patients with painful refractory frozen shoulder benefited from pan-capsular release, THL release, and LHBT tenodesis. The LHBT tenodesis decreased the possibility of LHBT instability. The balance of the shoulder joint was maintained after such extensive release. From October 2013 to June 2019, patients with painful refractory frozen shoulder were enrolled consecutively at the same institute. All patients received arthroscopic pan-capsular, THL release, and suprapectoral LHBT tenodesis with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. Preoperative and postoperative shoulder range of motion (ROM), pain visual analog scale (PVAS), subjective shoulder value (SSV), constant score, LHBT score, acromio-humeral distance (AHD), and critical shoulder angle (CSA) were recorded. In total, 35 patients with an average age of 53.1 ± 9 years were enrolled. The average follow-up period was 24 ± 1.5 months. Forward elevation improved from 105.1° ± 17° to 147° ± 12° (p < 0.001), external rotation improved from 24.1° ± 13.3° to 50.9° ± 9.7° (p < 0.001), and internal rotation improved from L3 to T9 (p < 0.001), respectively, at final follow-up. PVAS improved from 7.3 ± 1.1 to 1.8 ± 0.6 (p < 0.001), constant score from 23.4 ± 11 to 80.7 ± 5.2 (p < 0.001), and SSV from 27.7 ± 10.5 to 77.4 ± 3.8, respectively, at follow-up. No differences were found in AHD and CSA after surgery (p = 0.316, and p = 0.895, respectively). Patients with painful refractory frozen shoulder benefited from pan-capsular and THL release. A radiographically balanced shoulder joint was maintained even after such extensive release.

Arthroscopic treatment of type II superior labral anterior to posterior (SLAP) lesions in a younger population: minimum 2-year outcomes are similar between SLAP repair and biceps tenodesis.

PURPOSE: Compared to a relatively older population over 30-40 years of age, the efficacy of biceps tenodesis for type II SLAP lesions in a younger population is not well studied. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes between biceps tenodesis and labral repair for type II SLAP lesions in a young active population. METHODS: Patients aged 15-40 who underwent primary arthroscopic biceps tenodesis or SLAP repair for type II SLAP tears between 2009 and 2016 were included. Shoulders with intraarticular chondral damage, full thickness rotator cuff tear, rotator cuff repair, labral repair outside of the superior labrum, bony subacromial decompression, and acromioclavicular joint resection were excluded. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Sports/Performing Arts Module (DASH-sport), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and satisfaction. Return to sport rates were also recorded. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients (20 tenodesis, 33 repair) were available for minimum 2-year follow-up. Postoperatively, there were no significant differences in mean ASES, DASH-sport, VAS, and satisfaction between groups [ASES: tenodesis 86.3 vs. repair 86.4 (n.s.); DASH-sport: 11.0 vs. 22.5 (n.s.); VAS: 1.85 vs. 1.64 (n.s.); satisfaction: 8.50 vs. 8.00 (n.s.)]. Rate of return to pre-injury level of performance/competition in sport/physical activity was also similar between groups [tenodesis 63% vs. repair 50% (n.s.)]. CONCLUSIONS: In a young active population, primary arthroscopic biceps tenodesis is a viable surgical alternative to labral repair for type II SLAP lesions. The results of this study suggest that indications for arthroscopic tenodesis can safely be expanded to a younger patient group than has previously been demonstrated in the literature. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Supraspinatus repair and biceps tenodesis in competitive CrossFit athletes allow for a 100% of return to sport.

PURPOSE: The shoulder is the most commonly injured body part in CrossFit training. The aim of this study is to report the clinical and MRI results of an arthroscopic repair of supraspinatus tear associated with SLAP lesion in competitive CrossFit athletes. METHODS: Competitive CrossFit athletes affected by a full-thickness supraspinatus tear associated with SLAP lesion secondary to training injury were prospectively enrolled in the study. Clinical diagnosis was confirmed with MRI (> 1.5 T). Functional evaluation was done using the Constant Score (CS) and ASES score (ASES). All lesions were treated with single-row repair and biceps tenodesis. Minimum follow-up (clinical, MRI) was 24 months. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were available at the final follow-up. The average age was 43-year-old (range 28-52, SD 8), 12 were males and 7 females. Pre-operative CS and ASES were 67 (range 61-77, SD 7) and 71 (range 62-79, SD 5), respectively. At the 24-month follow-up, 19/19 athletes resumed intensive training and 17/19 returned to competitions. CS and ASES rose to 90 (p = 0.039) and 93 (p = 0.04), respectively. At the final follow-up, MRI indicated complete healing of the tendon in 15 (79%) cases and 4 (21%) cases with type II Sugaya repair integrity. Two of the patients of the latter group did not return to their usual training level and showed type II (Kibler) scapular dyskinesis. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic repair of the supraspinatus tendon associated with biceps tenodesis led to a 100% of return-to-CrossFit training and 90% rate of individuals resuming competitions at 24 months of follow-up. MRI showed 15 (79%) cases of complete healing and 4 (21%) cases with type II Sugaya repair integrity; biceps tenodesis clinically failed only in 1 case and the athlete complained of a decrease in the competitions scores and opted to discontinue CrossFit competitions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Cost comparison of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with arthroscopic vs. open biceps tenodesis.

PURPOSE: To use a nationwide database to determine differences in cost between patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff tear with open vs. arthroscopic biceps tenodesis (BT). METHODS: The 2014 State Ambulatory Surgical and Services Databases from 6 US states was utilized. All cases with CPT codes 29827 (arthroscopic rotator cuff repair [RCR]) and either 23430 (tenodesis of long tendon of biceps) or 29828 (arthroscopic BT) were selected. Cases that included both 23430 and 29828 were excluded, as were those missing demographic data. Generalized linear models were used to model costs based on the surgical and patient variables that were significant in the initial bivariate analysis (P < .05). RESULTS: A total of 3635 RCR and BT cases were identified. There were 2847 (78.3%) with arthroscopic BT and 788 (21.7%) with open BT. Patients undergoing arthroscopic BT were 3.1 years older than patients undergoing open BT (P < .001). For arthroscopic BT, 39.2% of the cases were women compared with 22.6% of the open cases (P < .001). For operative variables, arthroscopic BT required 9 fewer minutes in the OR than open cases (P = .002). Concomitant distal clavicle resection was performed in 35.5% of arthroscopic BT cases compared with 29.8% of open cases (P = .004). While controlling for other significant factors, open BT was associated with $5542 lower costs than arthroscopic BT in the setting of RCR (P < .001). In either case, concomitant subacromial decompression added $10,669 (P < .001), and distal clavicle resection added $3210 (P < .001). High-volume surgical facilities were associated with $4107 lower costs (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In a large series of patients undergoing arthroscopic RCR with open vs. arthroscopic BT, open BT was associated with $5542 lower costs than arthroscopic. Given that both techniques have been shown to be similarly effective in long-term follow-up, surgeons should be aware of opportunities for cost saving, particularly with the advent of bundled surgical reimbursements.

How can we define clinically important improvement in pain scores after biceps tenodesis?

BACKGROUND: Patient postoperative pain is an important consideration following biceps tenodesis. The visual analog scale (VAS) for pain is one of the most commonly used measures for perioperative pain assessment. Currently, there is limited understanding of clinically significant improvement in VAS pain. PURPOSE: To define the substantial clinical benefit (SCB), patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS), and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the VAS pain score in patients undergoing open subpectoral (OSPBT) or arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (ASPBT) at 1 year from surgery; and to identify preoperative predictors of achieving each outcome end point. METHODS: Data from consecutive patients who underwent isolated biceps tenodesis between January 2014 and March 2017 were collected and analyzed. Baseline data and postoperative patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores were recorded at 1 year postoperatively. In order to quantify the clinical significance of outcome achievement for the VAS pain score, the MCID, PASS, and SCB were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 165 patients were included in the final analysis. The VAS pain score threshold for achieving MCID was defined as a decrease of 12.9 (0-100). PASS was defined as achieving a 2-year postoperative score of 27.4 points (0-100), and SCB was defined as a decrease of 25.1 (0-100) at 1-year follow-up. The rates of achieving MCID, PASS, and SCB were 73.3%, 52.8%, and 45.9%, respectively. Multivariate regression analysis demonstrated that ASPBT (P = .01) and a lower preoperative Constant-Murley score were predictive of achieving the MCID (P = .01). In contrast, a lower preoperative score on the SF-12 Physical Component Summary (P = .01) and a higher score on the preoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (P < .001) were predictive of achieving the SCB and PASS, respectively. Preoperative duration of symptoms >6 months was predictive of a reduced likelihood to achieve PASS. CONCLUSION: This study identified scores for VAS pain that can be used to define clinically significant outcome after biceps tenodesis. Specifically, a decrease in pain score of 12.9 was a clinically important improvement in VAS pain, whereas a decrease of 25.1 represented the upper threshold of VAS pain improvement. Additionally, there were both modifiable and nonmodifiable factors that predicted achieving clinically significant levels of postoperative pain improvement.

Biceps tenodesis versus tenotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of level I randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Biceps tenodesis and tenotomy are 2 surgical treatment options for relief of long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) pathology and superior labrum anterior-to-posterior (SLAP) tears. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the clinical outcomes and complications of biceps tenodesis and tenotomy for the treatment of LHBT or SLAP pathology during shoulder arthroscopy. METHODS: We performed a systematic review by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify level I randomized controlled trials that compared the clinical outcomes of biceps tenodesis vs. tenotomy. The search phrase used was as follows: biceps tenodesis tenotomy randomized. Patients were assessed based on the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, visual analog scale score for pain, and Constant-Murley score, as well as postoperative range of motion, strength, and cosmetic deformity. RESULTS: Five studies (all level I) met the inclusion criteria, including 236 patients undergoing biceps tenodesis (mean age, 60.3 years) and 232 patients undergoing biceps tenotomy (mean age, 59.7 years). The mean follow-up period was 23.0 months. Overall, 6.8% of tenodesis patients experienced cosmetic deformity at latest follow-up compared with 23.3% of tenotomy patients (P < .001). No differences in Constant-Murley, visual analog scale, or American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores were found between groups in any study, and of all the studies evaluating strength and range of motion at latest follow-up, only 1 found a significant difference between groups, in which tenodesis patients demonstrated significantly increased forearm supination strength (P = .02). One study found tenodesis patients to experience significantly more biceps cramping at 6-month follow-up compared with tenotomy patients (P = .043), although no differences in complication rates at latest follow-up were found in any study. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing treatment for LHBT or SLAP pathology with either biceps tenodesis or tenotomy can be expected to experience similar improvements in patient-reported and functional outcomes. There is an increased rate of cosmetic deformity in patients undergoing biceps tenotomy compared with tenodesis.

The impact of workers' compensation on recovery after biceps tenodesis.

BACKGROUND: There remains a paucity of studies examining the impact of workers' compensation (WC) on a variety of outcomes after biceps tenodesis. The purpose of this study was to compare the postoperative recovery curves after biceps tenodesis in patients with and without WC claims. METHODS: Using the Surgical Outcomes System database, we assessed the postoperative recovery outcomes of all patients who had outcomes recorded at least 6 months after isolated biceps tenodesis for the treatment of a diagnosis of biceps tendinitis, stratified by WC status. The outcomes analyzed included visual analog scale, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, VR-12 (Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey) mental and physical, Simple Shoulder Test, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation scores. RESULTS: Overall, 139 patients with WC claims underwent isolated biceps tenodesis vs. 786 patients without WC claims. Demographic characteristics and comorbidities were similar in the 2 groups. Patients without WC claims had significantly improved visual analog scale, VR-12, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and Simple Shoulder Test scores at all times points after 3 months and 1 year compared with patients with WC claims. CONCLUSIONS: On analysis of patients' recovery after isolated biceps tenodesis, WC claims led to significantly worse pain and functional outcomes at every time point of analysis (3, 6, 12, and 24 months). Furthermore, patients with WC claims had worse preoperative-to-postoperative improvements in most outcomes. This information can be used to educate surgeons and patients on postoperative expectations, as well as to perform analyses focused on health economics, value, and policy.

Influence of mental health on postoperative outcomes in patients following biceps tenodesis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the relationship between preoperative mental health measured by the Short-Form 12 health survey mental component score and outcomes after isolated biceps tenodesis. METHODS: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons form (ASES), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), Constant-Murley score (CMS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain were administered preoperatively and at 6 and 12 months postoperatively to consecutive patients undergoing isolated biceps tenodesis between 2014 and 2018. Minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit (SCB), patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS), and rates of achievement were calculated. Patients were stratified by mental health status based on preoperative scores on the Short-Form 12 health survey mental component score. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to evaluate preoperative mental health status on achievement of minimal clinically important difference, SCB, and PASS. RESULTS: Patients demonstrated significant improvements in all outcome measures (P < .001). Patients with depression reported inferior postoperative scores on all patient-reported outcome measures. Low preoperative mental health score significantly predicted reduced likelihood to achieve SCB (odds ratio [OR]: 0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.17-0.81, P = .01) and PASS (OR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.12-0.65, P = .003) on the ASES form, SANE (OR: 0.24, 95% CI: 0.10-0.61, P = .003), CMS (OR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.08-0.77, P = .016), and VAS pain (OR: 0.01, 95% CI: 0.00-0.31, P = .008). CONCLUSION: Patients with depression reported inferior scores on all postoperative patient-reported outcome measures and demonstrated lower odds of achieving the SCB and PASS on the ASES form and PASS on the SANE, CMS, and VAS pain, compared with nondepressed patients.

Relationship between the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computer adaptive testing and legacy instruments in patients undergoing isolated biceps tenodesis.

HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to correlate the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computer adaptive testing (CAT) domains with commonly used legacy patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) preoperatively in a population of patients presenting to a tertiary care orthopedic center for biceps and labral pathology. METHODS: Prospective data were collected on 175 patients scheduled to undergo isolated biceps tenodesis at a tertiary center. Enrollees completed legacy scores (Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey, Short Form 12, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES] Assessment Form, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and Constant-Murley score) and PROMIS CAT questionnaires (Upper Extremity [UE], Pain Interference [PIF], and Depression). In addition, patients were asked to provide an assessment of the strength, function, and pain of the affected shoulder using a custom visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaire. Spearman rank correlations of the PROMIS CAT with legacy measures and the custom VAS were calculated. Floor and ceiling effects were assessed. RESULTS: The UE CAT yielded moderate correlations with the ASES score (r = 0.57) and the custom VAS strength score (r = 0.50-0.57). The PIF CAT demonstrated moderate correlations with the VAS pain score (r = 0.45) and high-moderate correlations with the ASES score, VR6D score, and UE CAT (r = 0.61-0.66). The Depression CAT demonstrated high-moderate correlations with the mental health legacy measures (r = -0.64 to -0.61). There was a significant relative floor effect for the Depression CAT at a score of 34.2 (19%). CONCLUSION: The PIF CAT was comparable to the ASES score, the current gold standard. Compared with legacy measures, both the UE CAT and PIF CAT are less burdensome and have few floor or ceiling effects. The PIF CAT may be a viable alternative to describe the physical and psychosocial impact of pain in biceps tenodesis patients.

Minimal clinically important differences after subpectoral biceps tenodesis: definition and retrospective assessment of predictive factors.

BACKGROUND: Minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) at 1 year after subpectoral biceps tenodesis are unknown for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scale, Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Our objectives were to determine MCIDs for these measures at 1 year after biceps tenodesis and to identify preoperative factors that predict attainment of MCIDs. METHODS: We included 52 patients who underwent arthroscopic débridement, decompression, and mini-open biceps tenodesis from 2016-2018. We analyzed age, sex, body mass index value, arm dominance, diagnosis, range of shoulder motion, and preoperative and 1-year postoperative ASES, SSV, and VAS scores. MCIDs were calculated using a distribution-based method of one-half the standard deviation. Preoperative thresholds predictive of MCIDs were calculated with univariate logistic regression. Multiple logistic regression was used to determine factors that predict MCIDs. Significance was set at a 2-tailed P value of <.05. RESULTS: MCIDs for the ASES, SSV, and VAS were 13, 12, and 1.6 points, respectively. Preoperative ASES score <59 predicted MCID on the ASES (P = .03); VAS score >3 predicted MCID on the VAS (P < .01); external shoulder rotation >40° predicted MCID on the SSV (P = .02); and age >41 years predicted MCID on the VAS (P = .02). CONCLUSION: At 1 year after débridement, decompression, and biceps tenodesis, MCIDs were 13, 12, and 1.6 points for the ASES, SSV, and VAS, respectively. Patients most likely to attain MCIDs were those aged >41 years, those with the most preoperative pain, and those with the poorest preoperative shoulder function.

"Tomydesis" might be a reliable technique for lesions of the long head of the biceps tendon associated with rotator cuff tears: a minimum 6-month prospective clinical follow-up study.

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes of self-locking T-tenotomy called "tomydesis" to three different techniques of tenodesis for lesions of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) associated with rotator cuff tears. HYPOTHESIS: Tomydesis could provide similar clinical outcomes than the other LHBT tenodesis techniques. METHODS: This prospective multicentre study included 77 patients who underwent rotator cuff repair concomitant with one of four surgical techniques on the LHBT. All patients had a minimum of 6-month follow-up post-operatively. Outcomes were evaluated based on the Constant score, SSV, pain on visual analogue scale, biceps-specific pain and Popeye deformity on photographs. RESULTS: There was no difference for the pain at the biceps muscle belly (p = 0.58), the bicipital groove (p = 0.69) and during resisted supination (p = 0.53), as well as for muscle cramps (p = 0.09), VAS for pain (p = 0.12) and Popeye deformity (p = 0.18). There was more pain in resisted flexion in the tomydesis group (p = 0.032), and significantly better Constant scores and SSV (< 0.001) in the patients who underwent the double lasso loop technique, but non-repairable cuff tears were most frequent in the tomydesis group. CONCLUSIONS: Tomydesis might be a reliable alternative that combines advantages of tenodesis and tenotomy. It should be considered in cases of rotator cuff tears, whose repair and healing are the key for good functional outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Patient-determined outcomes after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with and without biceps tenodesis utilizing the PITT technique.

HYPOTHESIS AND BACKGROUND: The percutaneous intra-articular transtendon technique (PITT) is a simple, rapid, and low-cost method of performing a biceps tenodesis. Few studies exist that examine the patient-determined outcomes of this technique in general or in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) with and without biceps tenodesis. We hypothesized that patients undergoing an isolated arthroscopic RCR would have equivalent outcomes to those undergoing RCRs with PITT biceps tenodesis. METHODS: We compared preoperative, patient-determined outcomes scores on patients undergoing primary arthroscopic RCR with and without a PITT biceps tenodesis with postoperative scores at a minimum of 2 years. These scores included the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff score (WORC), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and Shoulder Activity Level (SAL). Indication for a concomitant biceps tenodesis was a partial long head biceps tendon tear or biceps instability/subluxation. RESULTS: A total of 153 patients underwent an isolated RCR and 131 patients underwent RCR with biceps tenodesis (RCRBT). Both groups had improvements in WORC, ASES, SANE, and SST (P < .0001) and deteriorations in the SAL (P ≤ .005). There was no difference in the change in outcome scores between the groups (RCRBT vs. RCR, respectively) for WORC (46 vs. 47; P = .85), ASES (46 vs. 47; P = .82), SANE (53 vs. 51; P = .35), SST (5.8 vs. 5.8; P = .93), and SAL (-0.9 vs. -1.4; P = .46). There was no difference between the groups in complications that required revision surgery (1.5% vs. 1.3%; P = .91). CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic PITT RCRBT is safe and effective with equivalent patient-determined outcomes compared with patients undergoing RCR without biceps tenodesis.

A biomechanical comparison of two arthroscopic suture techniques in biceps tenodesis: whip-stitch vs. simple suture techniques.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical performance of whip-stitch (WS) and simple suture techniques (SST) of the long head of the biceps tendon in suprapectoral intraosseous tenodesis with interference screw fixation. METHODS: A total of 10 paired cadavers (61.1 ± 4.6 years) were randomized to receive WS or SST biceps tenodesis beginning at the musculotendinous junction. Both groups implemented a No. 2 FiberLoop wire and underwent suprapectoral fixation with a polyetheretherketone interference screw at the bicipital grove. A Materials Testing System performed cyclic testing (500 cycles), followed by load to failure at 1 mm/s. Load, displacement, and time were recorded during cyclic and failure testing. A 2-tailed Student's t-test and χ2 analysis were performed for failure load and mode of failure, respectively. RESULTS: Two SST specimens and 1 WS specimen failed during cyclic loading via tendon rupture at the screw-tendon interface. There was no significant statistical difference in the cyclic displacement after 500 cycles between the WS (12.9 mm ± 4.4 mm) and SST groups (14.0 mm ± 3.8 mm, P = .2); cyclic strain, defined as the peak displacement at the 500th cycle divided by the initial gauge length, between the WS (0.4 ± 0.2) and SST groups (0.7 ± 0.7, P = .3); maximal load (162.7 N ± 56.8 N vs. 153.1 N ± 39.3 N, respectively, P = .6); and stiffness (50.5 N/mm ± 17.7 N/mm vs. 43.3 N/mm ± 10.9 N/mm, respectively, P = .3). All specimens ruptured at the screw-tendon interface. CONCLUSION: The WS technique can provide equivalent biomechanical performance to the SST in suprapectoral intraosseous biceps tenodesis with interference screw fixation.

Establishing minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptomatic state after biceps tenodesis.

BACKGROUND: The purposes of this study were to establish thresholds for improvement in patient-reported outcome scores that signify the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) after biceps tenodesis (BT) and to assess patient variables that are associated with these clinically important outcomes. METHODS: A prospectively maintained institutional shoulder registry was queried for patients undergoing isolated BT between 2014 and 2017. Anchor-based and distribution-based approaches were used to calculate the MCID whereas an anchor-based method was used to calculate the SCB and PASS for the Constant-Murley score, Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE) score, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score. RESULTS: A total of 123 patients who underwent isolated BT were included for analysis. The MCID, SCB, and PASS calculated for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score were 11.0, 16.8, and 59.6, respectively. For the Constant-Murley score, the calculated MCID and PASS were 3.8 and 19.5, respectively. The MCID, SCB, and PASS calculated for the SANE score were 3.5, 5.8, and 65.5, respectively. The following patient variables were significantly associated with decreased odds of achieving the MCID: workers' compensation status, male sex, and higher preoperative SANE score. Patients with a history of ipsilateral shoulder surgery had significantly reduced odds of achieving SCB. The only factor significantly associated with failing to reach the PASS was workers' compensation status. CONCLUSION: This study established values for the MCID, SCB, and PASS after BT without concomitant rotator cuff repair. Workers' compensation status, previous shoulder surgery, male sex, and higher preoperative patient-reported outcome measure scores are associated with lower odds of achieving clinically significant improvement after BT.