Anatomic and Radiographic Comparison of Arthroscopic Suprapectoral and Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Sites

Background: Arthroscopic suprapectoral and open subpectoral surgical techniques are both commonly utilized approaches for proximal biceps tenodesis of the long head of the biceps brachii. A central limitation to the widespread use of an arthroscopic approach for biceps tenodesis is that the tendon may be tenodesed too proximally in the bicipital groove, leading to persistent pain and tendinopathy. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to determine the in vivo tenodesis location using arthroscopic suprapectoral and open subpectoral techniques for proximal biceps tenodesis in relation to clinically pertinent anatomic and radiographic landmarks. The null hypothesis was that arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis would not be significantly different in terms of the location from open subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 20 matched pairs of cadaveric shoulder specimens were randomized such that within each pair, 1 shoulder underwent a standard open subpectoral biceps tenodesis and the other underwent an arthroscopic suprapectoral tenodesis. Limited dissection and exposure of the surgical tunnel site and reference landmarks were subsequently performed, and anteroposterior and lateral radiographs were obtained. Direct measurements were performed anatomically using a digital caliper and radiographically using picture archiving and communication system (PACS) software from the proximal lip of the humeral tunnel to regional landmarks. Results: Both techniques were able to place the humeral tunnel distal to the bicipital groove in all specimens. On average, the open subpectoral approach placed the tunnel 2.2 cm distal to the arthroscopic suprapectoral approach. Conclusion: The arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis technique used in this study consistently placed the tenodesis tunnel distal to the bicipital groove, which may allay concerns about the bicipital groove as a pain source after this procedure. Clinical Relevance: This anatomic study provides new information on tunnel placement in 2 biceps tenodesis techniques. In addition, it provides clinically relevant anatomic and radiographic guidelines using clinically pertinent landmarks. This information may be useful in preoperative planning, intraoperative technique, and postoperative assessment of both open subpectoral and arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis.

[1]  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.

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

[3]  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.

[4]  E. Spencer,et al.  Humeral fracture following subpectoral biceps tenodesis in 2 active, healthy patients. , 2011, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[5]  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.

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

[7]  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.

[8]  Stefanie N. Reiff,et al.  Proximal humerus fracture after keyhole biceps tenodesis. , 2010, American journal of orthopedics.

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

[10]  D. Kohn,et al.  Tenodesis of the long head of biceps brachii: cyclic testing of five methods of fixation in a porcine model. , 2008, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[11]  P. Boileau,et al.  Isolated arthroscopic biceps tenotomy or tenodesis improves symptoms in patients with massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. , 2007, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[12]  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.