Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis for lesions of the long head of the biceps tendon: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Issue 3 (22nd January 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Zhou, Peng; Liu, Juncai; Deng, Xiangtian; Li, Zhong
• Other Names: Roever. Leonardo section editor.
• Is Part Of: Medicine. Volume 100:Issue 3(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-01-22
• Subjects: bicep -- meta-analysis -- tenodesis -- tenotomy; Medicine -- Periodicals; Medicine -- Periodicals; Médecine -- Périodiques; Geneeskunde; Medicine; Periodicals; Periodicals; 610.5
• DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000023993
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0025-7974

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Biceps tenotomy and biceps tenodesis are 2 most common surgical procedures for long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) pathology, but debate still exists regarding the choice of treatment. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare clinical results between tenotomy and tenodesis for the treatment of lesions of LHBT. It was hypothesized that there is no difference in outcomes of tenotomy and tenodesis for lesions of LHBT. Methods: A comprehensive search of literature published between 1980 and April 2020 was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tenotomy and tenodesis for LHBT lesions were included. The primary outcomes were Constant score and Popeye deformity. The secondary outcomes included the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, muscle strength, cramping pain, and operative time. For primary outcomes, trial sequential analysis (TSA) was conducted to reduce the risk of random errors and the GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations) approach was used to assess the quality of the body of evidence. Results: A total of 9 RCTs were included. In pooled analysis, statistical significance was observed in the Constant score (mean difference [MD], 1.59; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.04–3.14; P = .04), Popeye deformity (risk ratio [RR], 0.33; 95% CI, 0.22–0.49; P < .00001) and operative time (MD, 9.94; 95% CI 8.39–11.50; P < .00001). However, there were no significant differences between the tenodesis and tenotomy in ASES score ( P = .71), VAS for pain ( P = .79), cumulative elbow flexion strength ( P = .85), cumulative elbow supination strength ( P = .23), and cramping pain ( P = .61) TSA revealed that the results for Constant score was inconclusive. Conclusion: For the treatment of LHBT lesions, with the exception of constant score, there was no significant benefit of tenodesis over tenotomy. Although tenotomy is affected by a higher risk of Popeye sign, it is more timesaving. Abstract : Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text