All-Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Versus Open Subpectoral Tenodesis of the Long Head of the Biceps Brachii

Background: Pathologic changes of the long head of the biceps tendon are a recognized source of shoulder pain in adults that can be treated with tenotomy or tenodesis when nonoperative measures are not effective. It is not clear whether arthroscopic or open biceps tenodesis has a clinical advantage. Hypothesis: Pain relief and shoulder function after all-arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis are similar to outcomes after an open subpectoral tenodesis. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A prospective database was reviewed for patients undergoing an all-arthroscopic suprapectoral or open subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Adult patients with a minimum 18-month follow-up were included. Patients undergoing a concomitant rotator cuff or labral repair were excluded. The groups were matched to age within 3 years, sex, and time to follow-up within 3 months. Pain improvement, development of a “Popeye” deformity, muscle cramping, postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores, satisfaction scores, and complications were evaluated. Results: Forty-six patients (23 all-arthroscopic, 23 open) with an average age of 57.2 years (range, 45-70 years) were evaluated at a mean follow-up of 30.1 months (range, 21.1-44.9 months). No patients in either group developed a Popeye deformity or complained of arm cramping. There was no significant difference in mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores between the open and all-arthroscopic groups (92.3 vs 88.9; P = .42); similarly, there was no significant difference in patient satisfaction scores between the groups (8.9 vs 9.1; P = .73). Eighteen patients (78.3%) in the arthroscopic cohort and 16 (69.6%) in the open cohort fully returned to athletic activity (P = .50). Eight patients (34.8%) in the arthroscopic group and 10 (39.1%) in the open group reported pain at night or with heavy activities. There were no complications in the all-arthroscopic group. There were 2 complications in the open group that resolved by final follow-up. Conclusion: Biceps tenodesis remains a reliable treatment for pathologic abnormality of the long head of the biceps. Patients undergoing an all-arthroscopic suprapectoral tenodesis in the distal aspect or distal to the bicipital groove showed similar pain relief and clinical outcomes as compared with patients undergoing open subpectoral tenodesis. Open subpectoral biceps tenodesis may carry a higher complication risk secondary to a more invasive technique.

[1]  Heath B. Henninger,et al.  Biomechanical comparison of two techniques for arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis: interference screw versus implant-free intraosseous tendon fixation. , 2014, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[2]  Mark D. Miller,et al.  Arthroscopic Suprapectoral and Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis: A Comparison of Minimum Two Year Clinical Outcomes , 2014, Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine.

[3]  Jonathan P. Braman,et al.  The low-anterolateral portal for arthroscopic biceps tenodesis: description of technique and cadaveric study , 2014, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[4]  M. Tompkins,et al.  Anatomic and Radiographic Comparison of Arthroscopic Suprapectoral and Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Sites , 2013, The American journal of sports medicine.

[5]  P. Rhee,et al.  Iatrogenic Brachial Plexus Injuries Associated With Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis , 2013, The American journal of sports medicine.

[6]  A. Van Tongel,et al.  The "anchor shape" technique for long head of the biceps tenotomy to avoid the popeye deformity. , 2013, Arthroscopy techniques.

[7]  Bryan T. Hanypsiak,et al.  Anatomy of the biceps tendon: implications for restoring physiological length-tension relation during biceps tenodesis with interference screw fixation. , 2012, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[8]  Steven B Cohen,et al.  Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: clinical outcomes. , 2012, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[9]  R. A. Schaefer,et al.  Subpectoral biceps tenodesis: an anatomic study and evaluation of at-risk structures. , 2011, The American journal of sports medicine.

[10]  M. Schofer,et al.  Suprapectoral or subpectoral position for biceps tenodesis: biomechanical comparison of four different techniques in both positions. , 2012, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[11]  J. Warner,et al.  Clinical success of biceps tenodesis with and without release of the transverse humeral ligament. , 2012, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[12]  J. Kany,et al.  Arthroscopic Keyhole Proximal Biceps Tenodesis: A Technical Note , 2011, Journal of orthopaedic surgery.

[13]  M. Schofer,et al.  Biomechanical comparison of arthroscopically performable techniques for suprapectoral biceps tenodesis. , 2011, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[14]  Derek F. Papp,et al.  Biomechanical evaluation of open suture anchor fixation versus interference screw for biceps tenodesis. , 2011, Orthopedics.

[15]  M. Scheibel,et al.  Arthroscopic Soft Tissue Tenodesis Versus Bony Fixation Anchor Tenodesis of the Long Head of the Biceps Tendon , 2011, The American journal of sports medicine.

[16]  E. Flatow,et al.  Where to Tenodese the Biceps: Proximal or Distal? , 2011, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[17]  J. Xerogeanes,et al.  Minimally invasive proximal biceps tenodesis: an anatomical study for optimal placement and safe surgical technique. , 2011, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[18]  M. Provencher,et al.  Long Head of the Biceps Tendinopathy: Diagnosis and Management , 2010, The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

[19]  Stefanie N. Reiff,et al.  Complications associated with subpectoral biceps tenodesis: low rates of incidence following surgery. , 2010, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[20]  R. Tashjian,et al.  Minimal clinically important differences in ASES and simple shoulder test scores after nonoperative treatment of rotator cuff disease. , 2010, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[21]  A. V. Van Heest,et al.  Musculocutaneous Nerve Entrapment , 2009, The American journal of sports medicine.

[22]  N. Maffulli,et al.  Tenotomy versus Tenodesis in the Management of Pathologic Lesions of the Tendon of the Long Head of the Biceps Brachii , 2009, The American journal of sports medicine.

[23]  J. Adams Clinical Outcomes After Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis With an Interference Screw , 2009 .

[24]  M. Provencher,et al.  Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis , 2008, Sports medicine and arthroscopy review.

[25]  L. Higgins,et al.  Proximal Biceps Tendon: Injuries and Management , 2008, Sports medicine and arthroscopy review.

[26]  P Boileau,et al.  The long head of biceps and associated tendinopathy. , 2007, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[27]  R. Ryu,et al.  Biceps tendon and superior labrum injuries: decision-marking. , 2007, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[28]  R. Arciero,et al.  The biomechanical evaluation of four fixation techniques for proximal biceps tenodesis. , 2005, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[29]  R. Arciero,et al.  Subpectoral biceps tenodesis with interference screw fixation. , 2005, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[30]  I. Lo,et al.  Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis using a bioabsorbable interference screw. , 2004, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[31]  G. Walch,et al.  Arthroscopic Biceps Tenodesis: A New Technique Using Bioabsorbable Interference Screw Fixation , 2001, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[32]  A. Murthi,et al.  The incidence of pathologic changes of the long head of the biceps tendon. , 2000, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[33]  David Machin,et al.  Sample Size Tables for Clinical Studies , 1997 .

[34]  V C Mow,et al.  A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function. , 1994, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[35]  A. Froimson,et al.  Keyhole tenodesis of biceps origin at the shoulder. , 1975, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.