PURPOSE: To provide a detailed account of the location of the long head of the biceps (LHB) tenodesis tunnels using an all-arthroscopic suprapectoral technique in a prospective group of patients. These patients were then compared with a retrospective group of open subpectoral tenodesis patients of similar characteristics. METHODS: Postoperative radiographs from a prospective group of all-arthroscopic suprapectoral LHB tenodeses were compared with a retrospective group of open subpectoral tenodeses. Digital anteroposterior images were used to measure distances from clinically pertinent radiographic landmarks to tenodesis tunnel sites. RESULTS: Forty patients (20 all-arthroscopic, 20 open) met the inclusion criteria. The inferior border of the bicipital groove was located a mean distance of 33.7 ± 6.9 mm from the top of the humeral head. The mean distance measured in the open group was approximately 28 mm (P < .001) distal compared with the arthroscopic group. The humeral diameter was 7.5 ± 5.4 mm narrower at the subpectoral tenodesis site (P < .001). All 20 patients in the open subpectoral group had tenodesis tunnels placed distal to the bicipital groove compared with 17 of 20 patients (85%) in the all-arthroscopic group. There were 2 cases of lateral wall cortical reaming during subpectoral tenodesis but no periprosthetic humeral fractures. There were 2 cases of bicortical reaming during the all-arthroscopic tenodesis with no known complications. CONCLUSIONS: The location of biceps tenodesis significantly differs between all-arthroscopic suprapectoral and open subpectoral techniques, and the open subpectoral method achieves fixation in a significantly narrower region of the humerus. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
PURPOSE: To provide a detailed account of the location of the long head of the biceps (LHB) tenodesis tunnels using an all-arthroscopic suprapectoral technique in a prospective group of patients. These patients were then compared with a retrospective group of open subpectoral tenodesispatients of similar characteristics. METHODS: Postoperative radiographs from a prospective group of all-arthroscopic suprapectoral LHB tenodeses were compared with a retrospective group of open subpectoral tenodeses. Digital anteroposterior images were used to measure distances from clinically pertinent radiographic landmarks to tenodesis tunnel sites. RESULTS: Forty patients (20 all-arthroscopic, 20 open) met the inclusion criteria. The inferior border of the bicipital groove was located a mean distance of 33.7 ± 6.9 mm from the top of the humeral head. The mean distance measured in the open group was approximately 28 mm (P < .001) distal compared with the arthroscopic group. The humeral diameter was 7.5 ± 5.4 mm narrower at the subpectoral tenodesis site (P < .001). All 20 patients in the open subpectoral group had tenodesis tunnels placed distal to the bicipital groove compared with 17 of 20 patients (85%) in the all-arthroscopic group. There were 2 cases of lateral wall cortical reaming during subpectoral tenodesis but no periprosthetic humeral fractures. There were 2 cases of bicortical reaming during the all-arthroscopic tenodesis with no known complications. CONCLUSIONS: The location of biceps tenodesis significantly differs between all-arthroscopic suprapectoral and open subpectoral techniques, and the open subpectoral method achieves fixation in a significantly narrower region of the humerus. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.