Jung-Taek Hwang1, Cheol Jung Yang2, Kyu-Cheol Noh3, Yon-Sik Yoo2, Yoon Suk Hyun4, Yong Beom Lee5, Xiaoning Liu6. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Chuncheon Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Gyo-dong, Chuncheon-si, Gangwon-do, Republic of Korea; Institute for Skeletal Aging & Orthopedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Hallym University, Gyo-dong, Chuncheon-si, Gangwon-do, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Dongtan Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University Medical Center, Hallym University College of Medicine, Hwasung, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University Medical Center, Hallym University College of Medicine, Daerim 1-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: happynoh@gmail.com. 4. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Kangdong Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Gil 1-dong, Gangdong-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 5. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University Medical Center, Hallym University College of Medicine, Anyang, Republic of Korea. 6. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University Medical Center, Hallym University College of Medicine, Daerim 1-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the outcome between arthroscopic soft tissue tenodesis (STT) at the rotator interval and bony interference fixation tenodesis (BIFT) at the distal bicipital groove for the long head of the biceps (LHB). METHODS: Twenty-five shoulders that underwent arthroscopic STT of the LHB were compared with 28 shoulders that underwent arthroscopic BIFT using a 5.5-mm Bio-Tenodesis screw (Arthrex, Naples, FL). American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores, Constant score, and elbow flexion strength index (EFSI) were checked preoperatively, postoperative 1 year and 2 years. Ultrasound imaging evaluation took place at 1 year and 2 years postoperatively as well. RESULTS: The overall functional outcomes improved after surgery in both groups. The BIFT group showed a significant increase in EFSI (preop: 0.54, postoperative 2 years: 0.94) compared with that of the STT group (preop: 0.52, postoperative 2 years: 0.74) at postoperative 2 years (P = .006). However, no significant difference was seen in the increase of American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores and Constant scores between the two groups. At postoperative 2 years, ultrasound showed seven empty grooves in the STT group, but only two empty grooves in the BIFT group (P = .046). CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic BIFT for the LHB showed better improvement in EFSI than arthroscopic STT. In addition, the STT group showed a higher failure rate than the BIFT group. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
PURPOSE: To compare the outcome between arthroscopic soft tissue tenodesis (STT) at the rotator interval and bony interference fixation tenodesis (BIFT) at the distal bicipital groove for the long head of the biceps (LHB). METHODS: Twenty-five shoulders that underwent arthroscopic STT of the LHB were compared with 28 shoulders that underwent arthroscopic BIFT using a 5.5-mm Bio-Tenodesis screw (Arthrex, Naples, FL). American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores, Constant score, and elbow flexion strength index (EFSI) were checked preoperatively, postoperative 1 year and 2 years. Ultrasound imaging evaluation took place at 1 year and 2 years postoperatively as well. RESULTS: The overall functional outcomes improved after surgery in both groups. The BIFT group showed a significant increase in EFSI (preop: 0.54, postoperative 2 years: 0.94) compared with that of the STT group (preop: 0.52, postoperative 2 years: 0.74) at postoperative 2 years (P = .006). However, no significant difference was seen in the increase of American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores and Constant scores between the two groups. At postoperative 2 years, ultrasound showed seven empty grooves in the STT group, but only two empty grooves in the BIFT group (P = .046). CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic BIFT for the LHB showed better improvement in EFSI than arthroscopic STT. In addition, the STT group showed a higher failure rate than the BIFT group. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
Authors: Zi Jun Deng; Clark Yin; Joseph Cusano; Hussein Abdul-Rassoul; Emily J Curry; David Novikov; Richard Ma; Xinning Li Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2020-08-28