Prospective Randomized Study of Arthroscopic Proximal vs Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis: Is One Better?. Issue 7 (18th July 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gobezie, Reuben; Shishani, Yousef; Flocken, Janice
• Is Part Of: Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine. Volume 4:Issue 7(2016.)Supplement 4
• Publication Date: 2016-07-18
• Subjects: Sports medicine -- Periodicals; Orthopedics -- Periodicals; Arthroscopy -- Periodicals; Arthroplasty -- Periodicals; Knee -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 616.7
• DOI: 10.1177/2325967116S00195
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2325-9671

Abstract

Objectives: The biceps tendon is recognized as a significant source of pain in the shoulder for many patients. Operative techniques for tenodesis of the biceps tendon vary widely. No studies have been conducted directly comparing arthroscopic proximal vs. open subpectoral biceps tenodesis using a prospective study. We aim to compare the functional outcomes, pain relief, and complications of proximal vs. subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Methods: A prospective randomized study of 129 consecutive patients requiring biceps tenodesis for treatment of biceps tendon tears, biceps instability or superior labral tears was performed. Clinical outcome measures used to conduct the study included active range of motion, VAS pain score, ASES score and SANE scores. Complications and revisions were also documented. Results: Mean follow-up was 13.2 months (12-24 months) with 50 subpectoral tenodesis and 46 proximal tenodesis patients reaching minimum follow-up of 12 months. In the subpectoral group, the VAS improved from 5.7 to 2.0 (p < 0.001), ASES score improved from 49.8 to 77.7 (p< 0.001), and SANE scores improved from 42.1% to 77.7% (p<0.001). In the arthroscopic proximal tenodesis group, the VAS pain score improved from 5.9 to 1.8 (p<0.001), ASES score improved from 52.0 to 82.5 (p<0.001), and SANE scores improved from 42.8% to 78.6% (p<0.001). The revision rate for the subpectoral group was 4% (2/50 patients). The revision rate for the arthroscopic proximal tenodesis group was 8.6% (4/46). Twelve patients had persistent tenderness over the bicipital groove: 7 following proximal tenodesis and 5 following subpectoral tenodesis. No significant difference was found between methods in any outcome measures evaluated. Conclusion: This study found no difference in the functional outcomes or pain relief between proximal vs subpectoral biceps tenodesis. However, revision rates and occurrence of post-operative persistent bicipital groove pain for arthroscopic proximal tenodesis with internal fixation screw were slightly higher than in the subpectoral approach.