Open subpectoral vs. arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis: A comparison study of clinical outcomes

Tu,Jun; Xu,Bin; Guo,Ruipeng

doi:10.3892/etm.2019.8232

Open subpectoral vs. arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis: A comparison study of clinical outcomes

Authors:
- Jun Tu
- Bin Xu
- Ruipeng Guo
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Sports Medicine and Arthroscopic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, Anhui 230022, P.R. China, Laboratory for Biomechanics and Biomaterials, Hanover Medical School, D‑30627 Hannover, Germany
Published online on: November 22, 2019 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2019.8232
Pages: 428-434
Copyright: © Tu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to compare the results of open subpectoral biceps tenodesis and arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis for treating long head of biceps (LHB) lesions. From January 2015 to June 2016, a total of 259 patients underwent LHB tenodesis surgery. Among them, 117 patients (60 females and 57 males) who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were enrolled into the present study and were randomly divided into two groups, including an open subpectoral tenodesis group (OSPBT; n=62) and an arthroscopic proximal tenodesis group (ASPBT; n=55). All patients were followed up for at least 12 months. The demographic characteristics of each patient were recorded in detail. Moreover, clinical examinations of LHB lesions, such as shoulder range of motion (ROM), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores (0, no pain, to 10, most severe pain), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, and Constant‑Murley shoulder outcome scores, were investigated prior to surgery, as well as 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. Postoperative complications were also comprehensively investigated. There were no significant differences in sex, body mass index, dominant shoulder, duration of pain, injury type and operation time between the groups. The mean length of hospital stay in the ASPBT group was significantly lower than that of the OSPBT group (5.4±1.8 days vs. 9.3±2.9 days; P<0.05). The clinical outcomes, including shoulder ROMs, VAS scores, ASES scores and Constant‑Murley shoulder outcome scores, were significantly improved after either OSPBT or ASPBT treatment. Specifically, the VAS score, incidence of postoperative stiffness and bicipital groove tenderness in the OSPBT group were significantly lower than those in the ASPBT group at 3 months post‑surgery (P<0.05). Additionally, there were no significant difference in the improvement of other clinical outcomes and postoperative complications between the two groups. ASPBT and OSPBT were both effective and safe techniques for treating LHB lesions. However, tenderness of the bicipital groove was more common in the early stages of recovery post‑surgery in the ASPBT group, which may be related to tendinitis of the LHB in the bicipital groove.

View Figures

View References

1	Nair R, Kahlenberg CA, Patel RM, Knesek M and Terry MA: All-arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis. Arthrosc Tech. 4:e855–e861. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Werner BC, Brockmeier SF and Gwathmey FW: Trends in long head biceps tenodesis. Am J Sports Med. 43:570–578. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Levy DM, Meyer ZI, Campbell KA and Bach BR Jr: Subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 45:68–74. 2016.PubMed/NCBI
4	AlQahtani SM and Bicknell RT: Outcomes following long head of biceps tendon tenodesis. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 9:378–387. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Patel KV, Bravman J, Vidal A, Chrisman A and McCarty E: Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis. Clin Sports Med. 35:93–111. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Koh KH, Ahn JH, Kim SM and Yoo JC: Treatment of biceps tendon lesions in the setting of rotator cuff tears: Prospective cohort study of tenotomy versus tenodesis. Am J Sports Med. 38:1584–1590. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Slenker NR, Lawson K, Ciccotti MG, Dodson CC and Cohen SB: Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: Clinical outcomes. Arthroscopy. 28:576–582. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Werner BC, Evans CL, Holzgrefe RE, Tuman JM, Hart JM, Carson EW, Diduch DR, Miller MD and Brockmeier SF: Arthroscopic suprapectoral and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis: A comparison of minimum 2-year clinical outcomes. Am J Sports Med. 42:2583–2590. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Abraham VT, Tan BH and Kumar VP: Systematic review of biceps tenodesis: Arthroscopic versus open. Arthroscopy. 32:365–371. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Werner BC, Lyons ML, Evans CL, Griffin JW, Hart JM, Miller MD and Brockmeier SF: Arthroscopic suprapectoral and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis: A comparison of restoration of length-tension and mechanical strength between techniques. Arthroscopy. 31:620–627. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Chung SW, Huong CB, Kim SH and Oh JH: Shoulder stiffness after rotator cuff repair: Risk factors and influence on outcome. Arthroscopy. 29:290–300. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Johannsen AM, Macalena JA, Carson EW and Tompkins M: Anatomic and radiographic comparison of arthroscopic suprapectoral and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis sites. Am J Sports Med. 41:2919–2924. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Grimes DA, Hubacher D, Nanda K, Schulz KF, Moher D and Altman DG: The good clinical practice guideline: A bronze standard for clinical research. Lancet. 366:172–174. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Mazzocca AD, Rios CG, Romeo AA and Arciero RA: Subpectoral biceps tenodesis with interference screw fixation. Arthroscopy. 21:8962005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	David TS and Schildhorn JC: Arthroscopic suprapectoral tenodesis of the long head biceps: Reproducing an anatomic length-tension relationship. Arthrosc Tech. 1:e127–e132. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Lutton DM, Gruson KI, Harrison AK, Gladstone JN and Flatow EL: Where to tenodese the biceps: Proximal or distal? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 469:1050–1055. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Tahal DS, Katthagen JC, Vap AR, Horan MP and Millett PJ: Subpectoral biceps tenodesis for tenosynovitis of the long head of the biceps in active patients younger than 45 years old. Arthroscopy. 33:1124–1130. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Baggio M, Martinelli F, Netto MB, Martins RO, da Cunha RC and Stipp WN: Evaluation of the results from arthroscopic tenodesis of the long head of the biceps brachii on the tendon of the subscapularis muscle. Rev Bras Ortop. 51:157–162. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Hwang JT, Yang CJ, Noh KC, Yoo YS, Hyun YS, Lee YB and Liu X: Which is better for arthroscopic tenodesis of the long head of the biceps: Soft tissue or bony interference fixation? Arthroscopy. 32:560–567. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Chiang FL, Hong CK, Chang CH, Lin CL, Jou IM and Su WR: Biomechanical comparison of all-suture anchor fixation and interference screw technique for subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Arthroscopy. 32:1247–1252. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Gombera MM, Kahlenberg CA, Nair R, Saltzman MD and Terry MA: All-arthroscopic suprapectoral versus open subpectoral tenodesis of the long head of the biceps brachii. Am J Sports Med. 43:1077–1083. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Rhee PC, Spinner RJ, Bishop AT and Shin AY: Iatrogenic brachial plexus injuries associated with open subpectoral biceps tenodesis: A report of 4 cases. Am J Sports Med. 41:2048–2053. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	McCormick F, Nwachukwu BU, Solomon D, Dewing C, Golijanin P, Gross DJ and Provencher MT: The efficacy of biceps tenodesis in the treatment of failed superior labral anterior posterior repairs. Am J Sports Med. 42:820–825. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Ma H, Van Heest A, Glisson C and Patel S: Musculocutaneous nerve entrapment: An unusual complication after biceps tenodesis. Am J Sports Med. 37:2467–2469. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Sethi PM, Vadasdi K, Greene RT, Vitale MA, Duong M and Miller SR: Safety of open suprapectoral and subpectoral biceps tenodesis: An anatomic assessment of risk for neurologic injury. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 24:138–142. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26	Gilmer BB, DeMers AM, Guerrero D, Reid JB III, Lubowitz JH and Guttmann D: Arthroscopic versus open comparison of long head of biceps tendon visualization and pathology in patients requiring tenodesis. Arthroscopy. 31:29–34. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
27	Euler SA, Horan MP, Ellman MB, Greenspoon JA and Millett PJ: Chronic rupture of the long head of the biceps tendon: Comparison of 2-year results following primary versus revision open subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 136:657–663. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
28	Kolz CW, Suter T and Henninger HB: Regional mechanical properties of the long head of the biceps tendon. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 30:940–945. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
29	Yi Y, Lee JM, Kwon SH and Kim JW: Arthroscopic proximal versus open subpectoral biceps tenodesis with arthroscopy repair of small- or medium-sized rotator cuff tears. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 24:3772–3778. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI