Literature DB >> 28146397

A Prospective Randomized Study Comparing the Interference Screw and Suture Anchor Techniques for Biceps Tenodesis.

Ji Soon Park1,2, Sae Hoon Kim2, Ho Jin Jung3, Ye Hyun Lee4, Joo Han Oh5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Several methods are used to perform biceps tenodesis in patients with superior labrum-biceps complex (SLBC) lesions accompanied by a rotator cuff tear. However, limited clinical data are available regarding the best technique in terms of clinical and anatomic outcomes.
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical and anatomic outcomes of the interference screw (IS) and suture anchor (SA) fixation techniques for biceps tenodesis performed along with arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. STUDY
DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2.
METHODS: A total of 80 patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with SLBC lesions were prospectively enrolled and randomly divided according to the tenodesis method: the IS and SA groups. Functional outcomes were evaluated with the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Constant score, Korean Shoulder Score (KSS), and long head of the biceps (LHB) score at least 2 years after surgery. The anatomic status of tenodesis was estimated using magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasonography, and the anatomic failure of tenodesis was determined when the biceps tendon was not traced in the intertubercular groove directly from the insertion site of the IS or SA.
RESULTS: Thirty-three patients in the IS group and 34 in the SA group were monitored for more than 2 years. All postoperative functional scores improved significantly compared with the preoperative scores (all P < .001) and were not significantly different between the groups, including the LHB score (all P > .05). Nine anatomic failures of tenodesis were observed: 7 in the IS group and 2 in the SA group ( P = .083). In a multivariate analysis using logistic regression, IS fixation ( P = .003) and a higher (ie, more physically demanding) work level ( P = .022) were factors associated with the anatomic failure of tenodesis significantly. In patients with tenodesis failure, the LHB score ( P = .049) and the degree of Popeye deformity by the patient and examiner ( P = .004 and .018, respectively) were statistically different compared with patients with intact tenodeses.
CONCLUSION: Care must be taken while performing biceps tenodesis in patients with a higher work level; IS fixation appears to pose a higher risk in terms of the anatomic failure of tenodesis than SA fixation, although functional outcomes were not different.

Entities:  

Keywords:  anatomic outcome; biceps tenodesis; functional outcome; interference screw; prospective randomized study; suture anchor

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 28146397     DOI: 10.1177/0363546516667577

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Sports Med        ISSN: 0363-5465            Impact factor:   6.202


  18 in total

1.  Double on-lay fixation using all suture-type anchor for subpectoral biceps tenodesis has favorable functional outcomes and leads to less cosmetic deformities than single on-lay fixation.

Authors:  Sung-Min Rhee; Ho Yeon Jeong; Kyunghan Ro; Samyak Pancholi; Yong Girl Rhee
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2019-08-13       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 2.  Biceps tenodesis versus biceps tenotomy for biceps tendinitis without rotator cuff tears.

Authors:  Syed Hassan; Vipul Patel
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2018-12-31

Review 3.  Clinical outcome comparison of suprapectoral and subpectoral tenodesis of the long head of the biceps with concomitant rotator cuff repair: A systematic review.

Authors:  Selim Ergün; Yiğit Umur Cırdı; Said Erkam Baykan; Umut Akgün; Mustafa Karahan
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2021-02-09

4.  [Arthroscopic suprapectoral tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon].

Authors:  B Finke; W Petersen
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2018-02-02       Impact factor: 1.154

5.  Comparison of Clinical Failure Rates After 2 Techniques of Subpectoral Mini-Open Biceps Tenodesis: Sequence and Suture Passage Technique Matter.

Authors:  John B Schrock; Matthew J Kraeutler; Jonathan T Bravman
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2017-09-19

6.  Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Tenotomy versus Subpectoral Tenodesis in Rotator Cuff Repair.

Authors:  Jangwoo Kim; Ji Hoon Nam; Yuna Kim; Jong Seop Kim; Sae Hoon Kim
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2020-06-24

7.  Arthroscopic On-Lay Biceps Tenodesis: The Loop-Lock Technique.

Authors:  Matthew Daggett; Blake Stepanovich; Andrew Meyers; Brian Geraghty
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2019-09-10

8.  Long Biceps Subpectoral Tenodesis With Suspensory Button and Bicortical Fixation.

Authors:  Nuno Gomes; Manuel Ribeiro da Silva; Helder Pereira; Ricardo Aido; Ricardo Sampaio
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2017-07-17

9.  Comparison of Bone Tunnel and Cortical Surface Tendon-to-Bone Healing in a Rabbit Model of Biceps Tenodesis.

Authors:  Hongbo Tan; Dean Wang; Amir H Lebaschi; Ian D Hutchinson; Liang Ying; Xiang-Hua Deng; Scott A Rodeo; Russell F Warren
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2018-03-21       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  Biomechanical Comparison of Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Onlay Techniques.

Authors:  Lucca Lacheta; Samuel I Rosenberg; Alex W Brady; Grant J Dornan; Peter J Millett
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2019-10-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.