Similar clinical outcomes of biceps tenodesis with various kinds of fixation techniques: a systematic review

Author(s):  
Chairit Lohakitsathian ◽  
Felix Mayr ◽  
Julian Mehl ◽  
Sebastian Siebenlist ◽  
Andreas B Imhoff

ImportanceThere are many different ways to fix the long head of biceps (LHB) tendon to the proximal humerus but there is still no consensus about clinical outcomes on how each fixation technique relates to biceps tenodesis.ObjectiveThe purpose of this review was to systematically review subjective outcomes, patient and physical driven and surgical complications following tenodesis of the LHB tendon comparing different fixation techniques.Evidence reviewA systematic search for articles on the biceps tenodesis technique with reports of at least one in three aspect outcomes was carried out from January 2013 to November 2018. PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were the databases used for the literature review. The different surgical methods were compared by the number of studies that had significantly improved mean postoperative scores compared with preoperative scores. Besides this, the means of postoperative subjective outcome (Visual Analogue Scale for pain), and patient and physical driven (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score and the Constant-Murley Score) scores were also reported. Additionally, the complication rate of each technique was evaluated.FindingsFifty studies out of 761 were included. The interference screw fixation without tie over screw, interference screw fixation with tie over screw, single anchor suture, knotless anchor suture and soft tissue tenodesis techniques had more than one study that reported significant improvement in postoperative subjective, patient and physical driven scores compared with preoperative scores. There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes of the interference screw without tie over screw compared with the single anchor suture and interference screw with tie over screw techniques. Soft tissue tenodesis, single anchor suture and knotless anchor suture showed higher complication rates in comparison with other methods.Conclusion and relevanceAll five techniques mentioned above (interference screw fixation without tie over screw, interference screw fixation with tie over screw, single anchor suture, knotless anchor suture and soft tissue tenodesis) provided significant improvement in subjective outcomes, and patient and physical driven outcomes compared with the preoperative status. The soft tissue tenodesis, single anchor suture and knotless anchor suture techniques showed higher complication rates in comparison with other methods.Level of evidenceLevel IV.

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (3_suppl2) ◽  
pp. 2325967119S0019
Author(s):  
Richard N. Puzzitiello ◽  
Avinesh Agarwalla ◽  
Joseph N. Liu ◽  
Gregory L. Cvetanovich ◽  
Anirudh K. Gowd ◽  
...  

Objectives: Biceps tenodesis is performed with increasing frequency for various pathologies of the long head biceps tendon (LHBT). Multiple surgical techniques and devices for tenodesis have been described with favorable outcomes. The subpectoral approach provides adequate clinical outcomes; furthermore, recent research suggests that similar outcomes can be achieved via arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis. Previous studies have compared the biomechanical profile of suprapectoral and subpectoral biceps tenodesis. There is a paucity of data regarding the biomechanical behavior and construct stability of suprapectoral and subpectoral biceps tenodesis in vivo. The purpose of this investigation is to quantify and compare the behavior of the biceps tenodesis construct in arthroscopic suprapectoral (ASPBT) and open subpectoral (OSPBT) techniques, with radiostereometric analysis (RSA). Methods: This is a prospective cohort study comparing migration of the biceps tendon after suprapectoral and subpectoral biceps tenodesis with Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interference screw fixation. Thirty consecutive patients were allocated to the subpectoral group, follow by thirty consecutive patients to the suprapectoral group. Patients aged 18-65 years with symptomatic biceps tendinopathy, anterior intertubercular groove tenderness, and positive biceps tension tests were included in the investigation. Patients undergoing revision biceps tenodesis, shoulder arthroplasty, or ruptured LHBT were excluded. A mini skin staple, functioning as a radiostereometric marker, was placed longitudinally within the tendon prior to final fixation with interference screw. Staple stability was confirmed with a hemostat to gravity. The distance from the most proximal portion of the mini skin staple and the most proximal aspect of the humeral head was measured. Following final fixation with an interference screw, AP radiographs were obtained intraoperatively. Follow-up radiographs were one week and 12 weeks post-operatively. A paired and non-paired students t-test were utilized to assess for intra-group and inter-group changes, respectively. Results: A total of 60 consecutive patients (30 per group) were enrolled and available for follow-up imaging at 1 and 12 weeks postoperatively. The average age was 43.5±10.5 years, average BMI was 28.3±5.4, and 50% of the patients were females. Groups were similar with respect to patient demographics and concomitant procedures (P>.05). In the OSPBT group, the average distance of the radiostereometic marker to the proximal humeral head increased on by 26.0 mm (SD, 15.7) from the immediate post-operative radiograph to 3 months postoperatively (P=0.002). In the ASPBT group, the average distance also significantly increased by 24.7 mm (SD, 14.9) from the immediate post-operative radiograph to 3-months postoperatively (P=0.001). The change in distal migration between the ASPBT and OSPBT was not found to be statistically significant (P> 0.05). Conclusion: Biceps tenodesis performed with a PEEK tenodesis screw results in significant distal migration of the biceps tendon by 3 months post-operatively; however, there was no significant difference in distal migration between the OSPBT and ASPBT groups.


2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 276-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Millett ◽  
Daniel Rios ◽  
Frank Martetschläger ◽  
Marilee P. Horan

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. e1953-e1957 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Amouyel ◽  
Yves-Pierre Le Moulec ◽  
Nicolas Tarissi ◽  
Mo Saffarini ◽  
Olivier Courage

2011 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maj Mark A. Slabaugh ◽  
Rachel M. Frank ◽  
Geoffrey S. Van Thiel ◽  
Rebecca M. Bell ◽  
Vincent M. Wang ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document