Sami Faruqui1, Mohammad A Kotob2, Courtney C Hanna3, Abdullah Foad4. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Iowa, 200 Hawkins Drive, Iowa City, IA, 52246, USA. sami-faruqui@uiowa.edu. 2. Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA. 3. Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA. 4. Quality Care Clinic and Surgicenter, Clinton, IA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes and complications in a series of patients who underwent the modified Norwegian method (MNM) of biceps tenodesis by a single shoulder surgeon. METHODS: A retrospective review of charts from all patients who underwent the modified Norwegian method of biceps tenodesis by the senior author during a 5-year period between 2008 and 2013 was performed. After all patients were identified, informed consent was obtained and DASH and ASES surveys were administered. Inclusion criteria for the study were a minimum 2-year follow-up after MNM tenodesis and appropriate adherence to DASH and ASES survey protocol. Data obtained included: demographic data, time to follow-up, hand dominance, concomitant procedures, workman's compensation (WC) status, DASH and ASES surveys, and complications. A complication was defined as rupture of the tenodesis or post-operative infection. Residual shoulder pain was considered as treatment failure. The data were then analysed using statistical software. In this time period, 94 biceps tenodeses using the MNM technique were performed. Follow-up rate was 75/94 patients (80 %). Of 75 patients, 15 (20 %) had an isolated tenodesis performed. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in DASH or ASES scores when comparing isolated tenodesis patients to those who had concomitant procedures. WC patients had worse DASH and ASES scores (p = 0.016; p = 0.002). The complication rate was 2/75 (3 %), which were both ruptured tenodeses. Of 75 patients, 3 (4 %) experienced treatment failure with residual anterior shoulder pain. CONCLUSIONS: There is debate in the literature regarding the optimal method of biceps tenodesis. This paper demonstrates that the MNM tenodesis appears to be a simple, efficient, and effective alternative to other methods of biceps tenodesis with subjective outcome scores and complication rates that parallel other methods previously described in the literature. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes and complications in a series of patients who underwent the modified Norwegian method (MNM) of biceps tenodesis by a single shoulder surgeon. METHODS: A retrospective review of charts from all patients who underwent the modified Norwegian method of biceps tenodesis by the senior author during a 5-year period between 2008 and 2013 was performed. After all patients were identified, informed consent was obtained and DASH and ASES surveys were administered. Inclusion criteria for the study were a minimum 2-year follow-up after MNM tenodesis and appropriate adherence to DASH and ASES survey protocol. Data obtained included: demographic data, time to follow-up, hand dominance, concomitant procedures, workman's compensation (WC) status, DASH and ASES surveys, and complications. A complication was defined as rupture of the tenodesis or post-operative infection. Residual shoulder pain was considered as treatment failure. The data were then analysed using statistical software. In this time period, 94 biceps tenodeses using the MNM technique were performed. Follow-up rate was 75/94 patients (80 %). Of 75 patients, 15 (20 %) had an isolated tenodesis performed. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in DASH or ASES scores when comparing isolated tenodesis patients to those who had concomitant procedures. WC patients had worse DASH and ASES scores (p = 0.016; p = 0.002). The complication rate was 2/75 (3 %), which were both ruptured tenodeses. Of 75 patients, 3 (4 %) experienced treatment failure with residual anterior shoulder pain. CONCLUSIONS: There is debate in the literature regarding the optimal method of biceps tenodesis. This paper demonstrates that the MNM tenodesis appears to be a simple, efficient, and effective alternative to other methods of biceps tenodesis with subjective outcome scores and complication rates that parallel other methods previously described in the literature. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
Entities:
Keywords:
Arthroscopy; Biceps; Biceps tenodesis; Long head of the biceps; Shoulder
Authors: Augustus D Mazzocca; James Bicos; Stephen Santangelo; Anthony A Romeo; Robert A Arciero Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Kalliopi Alpantaki; David McLaughlin; Domna Karagogeos; Alexander Hadjipavlou; George Kontakis Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Mufaddal Mustafa Gombera; Cynthia A Kahlenberg; Rueben Nair; Matthew D Saltzman; Michael A Terry Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2015-03-29 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Onder Kilicoglu; Ozgur Koyuncu; Mehmet Demirhan; Cem Zeki Esenyel; Ata Can Atalar; Serhat Ozsoy; Ergun Bozdag; Emin Sunbuloglu; Bilge Bilgic Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2005-07-11 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Paul C Brady; Pablo Narbona; Christopher R Adams; David Huberty; Peter Parten; Robert U Hartzler; Paolo Arrigoni; Stephen S Burkhart Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Brian C Werner; Matthew L Lyons; Cody L Evans; Justin W Griffin; Joseph M Hart; Mark D Miller; Stephen F Brockmeier Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2014-12-10 Impact factor: 4.772
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