BACKGROUND: There is no univocal consensus regarding Long Head of the Biceps (LHB) best treatment between tenotomy and tenodesis. There is no consensus regarding the best location to perform the tenodesis. The LHB tenodesis performed by the proximal tendon excision as first step can miss the proper tension to the muscle belly. Fixations proximal to the pectoralis major can lead to groove pain. This study aims to test the efficacy of a new LHB tenodesis technique by comparing its results with the tenotomy. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent surgery between May 2014 and May 2015. The mean follow up was 14.7 months. Sixteen patients underwent mini-open tenodesis to the Pectoralis Major tendon by the use of a resorbable suture (TD group); sixteen underwent tenotomy (TT group). The mean age of the TD group was 54 years; the mean age of the TT group was 56 years. We evaluated pain, subjective perception of the patient of possible aesthetic and strength differences between the two biceps, "Popeye sign", and tests to stimulate the LHB. We administered three evaluation questionnaires: the ASES score, the SPADI score, and the SST. RESULTS: 32 consecutive patients were evaluated. The clinical scores did not record statistically significant differences: the mean ASES score was 92.9 (TD) and 90.8 (TT); the mean SPADI score was 92.5 (TD), and 89.7 (TT); the mean SST was 8.9 (TD), and 8.4 (TT). Compared to the TD group, in the TT group we registered with greater frequency the "Popeye sign" with a P value < 0.05 (9 cases vs 1), and spasms in the biceps muscle belly (5 cases vs 1). All other signs or symptoms evaluated were more frequent in the TT group, except the strength difference perceived by the patient (3 patients in the TT group, and 2 in the TD group). No complications were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: This new Long Head of the Biceps (LHB) tenodesis technique is valuable and reliable, and provided better results than tenotomy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
BACKGROUND: There is no univocal consensus regarding Long Head of the Biceps (LHB) best treatment between tenotomy and tenodesis. There is no consensus regarding the best location to perform the tenodesis. The LHB tenodesis performed by the proximal tendon excision as first step can miss the proper tension to the muscle belly. Fixations proximal to the pectoralis major can lead to groove pain. This study aims to test the efficacy of a new LHB tenodesis technique by comparing its results with the tenotomy. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent surgery between May 2014 and May 2015. The mean follow up was 14.7 months. Sixteen patients underwent mini-open tenodesis to the Pectoralis Major tendon by the use of a resorbable suture (TD group); sixteen underwent tenotomy (TT group). The mean age of the TD group was 54 years; the mean age of the TT group was 56 years. We evaluated pain, subjective perception of the patient of possible aesthetic and strength differences between the two biceps, "Popeye sign", and tests to stimulate the LHB. We administered three evaluation questionnaires: the ASES score, the SPADI score, and the SST. RESULTS: 32 consecutive patients were evaluated. The clinical scores did not record statistically significant differences: the mean ASES score was 92.9 (TD) and 90.8 (TT); the mean SPADI score was 92.5 (TD), and 89.7 (TT); the mean SST was 8.9 (TD), and 8.4 (TT). Compared to the TD group, in the TT group we registered with greater frequency the "Popeye sign" with a P value < 0.05 (9 cases vs 1), and spasms in the biceps muscle belly (5 cases vs 1). All other signs or symptoms evaluated were more frequent in the TT group, except the strength difference perceived by the patient (3 patients in the TT group, and 2 in the TD group). No complications were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: This new Long Head of the Biceps (LHB) tenodesis technique is valuable and reliable, and provided better results than tenotomy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
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: 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: David M Lutton; Konrad I Gruson; Alicia K Harrison; James N Gladstone; Evan L Flatow Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 4.176
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: Timothy Leroux; Jaskarndip Chahal; David Wasserstein; Nikhil N Verma; Anthony A Romeo Journal: Sports Health Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 3.843
Authors: László Bucsi; Károly Schandl; Mátyás Vajda; Lajos Szakó; Péter Hegyi; Bálint Erőss; Anikó Görbe; Zsolt Molnár; Kincső Kozma; Gergő Józsa Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2022-03-07 Impact factor: 3.479