Elshaday S Belay1, Jocelyn R Wittstein2, Grant E Garrigues3, Tally E Lassiter2, Melissa Scribani4, Richard D Goldner2, Christopher A Bean2. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3000, Durham, NC, 27710, UK. Elshaday.Belay@duke.edu. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3000, Durham, NC, 27710, UK. 3. Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, USA. 4. Center for Biostatistics, Bassett Research Institute, Cooperstown, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Surgical management for long head of the biceps (LHB) tendinopathy with either biceps tenotomy or tenodesis is a reliable, but debated treatment option. The aim of this prospective, randomized, single-blinded study is to evaluate differences in pain relief and subjective outcomes between biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis for LHB tendinopathy. METHODS: Subjects were randomized and blinded to biceps tenotomy versus arthroscopic tenodesis intra-operatively. Outcomes evaluated included subjective patient outcome scores, pain, and cosmetic deformity. Subjective outcomes scores and pain were analyzed using a two-way ANOVA, controlling for concomitant rotator cuff repair. Binary outcomes were compared using Chi-square tests. RESULTS:Thirty-four subjects (31 male, 3 female) with a median age of 56 (range 30-77) were enrolled. Twenty subjects were randomized to tenotomy and 14 to tenodesis. Fifty-six percent had concomitant rotator cuff repairs. The mean VAS pain score at 3 months was lower with tenotomy versus tenodesis. 2-year follow-up demonstrated no statistically significant differences for VAS, ASES, or SANE. 15/20 (75%) subjects with biceps tenotomy reported no pain medication use at the 2-week postoperative visit versus 5/14 (33%) for biceps tenodesis. Popeye deformity was found in 5/20 (25%) of tenotomy subjects versus 1/14 (7%) in tenodesis subjects. CONCLUSION: Outcomes appear similar between biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis; however, the tenotomy group demonstrated greater incidence of cosmetic deformity but an earlier improvement in postoperative pain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Treatment Studies, Level II.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Surgical management for long head of the biceps (LHB) tendinopathy with either biceps tenotomy or tenodesis is a reliable, but debated treatment option. The aim of this prospective, randomized, single-blinded study is to evaluate differences in pain relief and subjective outcomes between biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis for LHBtendinopathy. METHODS: Subjects were randomized and blinded to biceps tenotomy versus arthroscopic tenodesis intra-operatively. Outcomes evaluated included subjective patient outcome scores, pain, and cosmetic deformity. Subjective outcomes scores and pain were analyzed using a two-way ANOVA, controlling for concomitant rotator cuff repair. Binary outcomes were compared using Chi-square tests. RESULTS: Thirty-four subjects (31 male, 3 female) with a median age of 56 (range 30-77) were enrolled. Twenty subjects were randomized to tenotomy and 14 to tenodesis. Fifty-six percent had concomitant rotator cuff repairs. The mean VAS pain score at 3 months was lower with tenotomy versus tenodesis. 2-year follow-up demonstrated no statistically significant differences for VAS, ASES, or SANE. 15/20 (75%) subjects with biceps tenotomy reported no pain medication use at the 2-week postoperative visit versus 5/14 (33%) for biceps tenodesis. Popeye deformity was found in 5/20 (25%) of tenotomy subjects versus 1/14 (7%) in tenodesis subjects. CONCLUSION: Outcomes appear similar between biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis; however, the tenotomy group demonstrated greater incidence of cosmetic deformity but an earlier improvement in postoperative pain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Treatment Studies, Level II.
Authors: John R Shank; Steven B Singleton; Sepp Braun; Michael J Kissenberth; Arun Ramappa; Henry Ellis; Michael J Decker; Richard J Hawkins; Michael R Torry Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2010-10-29 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Nicholas R Slenker; Kevin Lawson; Michael G Ciccotti; Christopher C Dodson; Steven B Cohen Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2012-01-28 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Jamie L Friedman; Jennifer L FitzPatrick; Lucas S Rylander; Christine Bennett; Armando F Vidal; Eric C McCarty Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2015-02-12
Authors: Ramesh C Srinivasan; Kevin A Hao; Thomas W Wright; Kevin W Farmer; Jonathan O Wright; Ryan P Roach; Michael W Moser; Michael C Freidl; Marissa Pazik; Joseph J King Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2022-07-15
Authors: Abdulaziz F Ahmed; Ammar Toubasi; Shady Mahmoud; Ghalib O Ahmed; Mohammed Al Ateeq Al Dosari; Bashir A Zikria Journal: Shoulder Elbow Date: 2020-07-22
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
Authors: Julia Pozzetti Daou; Dan Yuta Nagaya; Fabio Teruo Matsunaga; Marcel Jun Sugawara Tamaoki Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 4.755