• Peter J Millett, Brett Sanders, Reuben Gobezie, Sepp Braun, and Jon J P Warner.
• Steadman Hawkins Clinic & Steadman Hawkins Research Foundation, 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 1000, Vail, CO, USA. drmillett@steadman-hawkins.com
• Bmc Musculoskel Dis. 2008 Sep 15; 9: 121.

BackgroundBioabsorbable interference screw fixation has superior biomechanical properties compared to suture anchor fixation for biceps tenodesis. However, it is unknown whether fixation technique influences clinical results.HypothesisWe hypothesize that subpectoral interference screw fixation offers relevant clinical advantages over suture anchor fixation for biceps tenodesis.Study DesignCase Series.MethodsWe performed a retrospective review of a consecutive series of 88 patients receiving open subpectoral biceps tenodesis with either interference screw fixation (34 patients) or suture anchor fixation (54 patients). Average follow up was 13 months. Outcomes included Visual Analogue Pain Scale (0-10), ASES score, modified Constant score, pain at the tenodesis site, failure of fixation, cosmesis, deformity (popeye) and complications.ResultsThere were no failures of fixation in this study. All patients showed significant improvement between their preoperative and postoperative status with regard to pain, ASES score, and abbreviated modified Constant scores. When comparing IF screw versus anchor outcomes, there was no statistical significance difference for VAS (p = 0.4), ASES score (p = 0.2), and modified Constant score (P = 0.09). One patient (3%) treated with IF screw complained of persistent bicipital groove tenderness, versus four patients (7%) in the SA group (nonsignificant).ConclusionSubpectoral biceps tenodesis reliably relieves pain and improves function. There was no statistically significant difference in the outcomes studied between the two fixation techniques. Residual pain at the site of tenodesis may be an issue when suture anchors are used in the subpectoral location.

33 keywords...

hide…