• Young Yi, Jong-Myoung Lee, Seok Hyun Kwon, and Jeong-Woo Kim.
• Department of Orthopedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Wonkwang University Hospital, 895 Muwang-ro, Iksan, 570-780, Korea.
• Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016 Dec 1; 24 (12): 3772-3778.

PurposeThe study was aimed to compare arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis in repair of small or medium rotator cuff tears.MethodsEighty-five patients underwent biceps tenodesis with arthroscopic repair of a rotator cuff tear, and 66 patients were followed for median of 26.8 (18-42) months with ultrasonography were reviewed. The arthroscopic biceps tenodesis group included 34 cases, and the open subpectoral biceps group included 32 cases. Patients were evaluated using visual analogue scale (VAS), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and constant scores. Rotator cuff repair and fixation of the biceps tendon were assessed by ultrasonography. Fixation failure and degree of deformity were evaluated by the pain in the bicipital groove and biceps apex distance (BAD).ResultsVAS score and tenderness at the bicipital groove decreased significantly in the open subpectoral group at 3 months postoperative. In both groups, the range of motion, ASES score, and constant score increased significantly (P < 0.05). Rotator cuff retear occurred in three cases (8.8 %) in the arthroscopic group and two cases in the open subpectoral group (6.2 %). There was no significant difference in BAD between the two groups.ConclusionThere was no difference between open subpectoral tenodesis and arthroscopic proximal tenodesis at the time of the final follow-up; however, open subpectoral tenodesis showed encouraging results at 3-month follow-up. This early result of subpectoral tenodesis was related to removing most part of biceps tendinitis and using intra-bicipital groove tenodesis technique.Level Of EvidenceIII.

28 keywords...

hide…