HYPOTHESIS: There are significant differences in incidence of cosmetic deformity and load to tendon failure between biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis for the treatment of long head of the biceps brachii (LHB) tendon lesions which are supported by the evidence-based strengths and weaknesses of each procedure in the literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for eligible clinical and biomechanical articles relating to biceps tenotomy or tenodesis from 1966 to 2010. Keywords were biceps tenotomy, biceps tenodesis, long head of the biceps brachii, and Popeye sign. All relevant studies were included based on study objectives, and excluded studies consisted of abstracts, case reports, letters to the editor, and articles without outcome measures. RESULTS: All articles reviewed were of level IV evidence. Combined results from reviewed papers on the differences between LHB tenotomy vs tenodesis demonstrated a higher incidence of cosmetic deformity in patients treated with biceps tenotomy. Complications were similar for each treatment, with a higher likelihood of bicipital pain associated with tenodesis. Lack of high levels of evidence from prospective randomized trials limits our ability to recommend one technique over another. DISCUSSION: This review demonstrated a higher incidence of cosmetic deformity in patients treated with biceps tenotomy compared with tenodesis, with an associated lower load to tendon failure. However, there was no consensus in the literature regarding the use of tenotomy vs. tenodesis for LHB tendon lesions due to variable results and methodology of published studies. Individual patient factors and needs should guide surgeons on whether to use tenotomy or tenodesis. CONCLUSIONS: There is a great need for future studies with high levels of evidence, control, randomization, and power, with well-defined study variables, to compare biceps tenotomy and tenodesis for the treatment of LHB tendon lesions.
HYPOTHESIS: There are significant differences in incidence of cosmetic deformity and load to tendon failure between biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis for the treatment of long head of the biceps brachii (LHB) tendon lesions which are supported by the evidence-based strengths and weaknesses of each procedure in the literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for eligible clinical and biomechanical articles relating to biceps tenotomy or tenodesis from 1966 to 2010. Keywords were biceps tenotomy, biceps tenodesis, long head of the biceps brachii, and Popeye sign. All relevant studies were included based on study objectives, and excluded studies consisted of abstracts, case reports, letters to the editor, and articles without outcome measures. RESULTS: All articles reviewed were of level IV evidence. Combined results from reviewed papers on the differences between LHB tenotomy vs tenodesis demonstrated a higher incidence of cosmetic deformity in patients treated with biceps tenotomy. Complications were similar for each treatment, with a higher likelihood of bicipital pain associated with tenodesis. Lack of high levels of evidence from prospective randomized trials limits our ability to recommend one technique over another. DISCUSSION: This review demonstrated a higher incidence of cosmetic deformity in patients treated with biceps tenotomy compared with tenodesis, with an associated lower load to tendon failure. However, there was no consensus in the literature regarding the use of tenotomy vs. tenodesis for LHB tendon lesions due to variable results and methodology of published studies. Individual patient factors and needs should guide surgeons on whether to use tenotomy or tenodesis. CONCLUSIONS: There is a great need for future studies with high levels of evidence, control, randomization, and power, with well-defined study variables, to compare biceps tenotomy and tenodesis for the treatment of LHB tendon lesions.