-
Comparative Study
All-arthroscopic suprapectoral versus open subpectoral tenodesis of the long head of the biceps brachii.
- Mufaddal Mustafa Gombera, Cynthia A Kahlenberg, Rueben Nair, Matthew D Saltzman, and Michael A Terry.
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA mustafa.gombera@gmail.com.
- Am J Sports Med. 2015 May 1; 43 (5): 1077-83.
BackgroundPathologic changes of the long head of the biceps tendon are a recognized source of shoulder pain in adults that can be treated with tenotomy or tenodesis when nonoperative measures are not effective. It is not clear whether arthroscopic or open biceps tenodesis has a clinical advantage.HypothesisPain relief and shoulder function after all-arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis are similar to outcomes after an open subpectoral tenodesis.Study DesignCohort study; Level of evidence, 3.MethodsA prospective database was reviewed for patients undergoing an all-arthroscopic suprapectoral or open subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Adult patients with a minimum 18-month follow-up were included. Patients undergoing a concomitant rotator cuff or labral repair were excluded. The groups were matched to age within 3 years, sex, and time to follow-up within 3 months. Pain improvement, development of a "Popeye" deformity, muscle cramping, postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores, satisfaction scores, and complications were evaluated.ResultsForty-six patients (23 all-arthroscopic, 23 open) with an average age of 57.2 years (range, 45-70 years) were evaluated at a mean follow-up of 30.1 months (range, 21.1-44.9 months). No patients in either group developed a Popeye deformity or complained of arm cramping. There was no significant difference in mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores between the open and all-arthroscopic groups (92.3 vs 88.9; P=.42); similarly, there was no significant difference in patient satisfaction scores between the groups (8.9 vs 9.1; P=.73). Eighteen patients (78.3%) in the arthroscopic cohort and 16 (69.6%) in the open cohort fully returned to athletic activity (P=.50). Eight patients (34.8%) in the arthroscopic group and 10 (39.1%) in the open group reported pain at night or with heavy activities. There were no complications in the all-arthroscopic group. There were 2 complications in the open group that resolved by final follow-up.ConclusionBiceps tenodesis remains a reliable treatment for pathologic abnormality of the long head of the biceps. Patients undergoing an all-arthroscopic suprapectoral tenodesis in the distal aspect or distal to the bicipital groove showed similar pain relief and clinical outcomes as compared with patients undergoing open subpectoral tenodesis. Open subpectoral biceps tenodesis may carry a higher complication risk secondary to a more invasive technique.© 2015 The Author(s).
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.