Brian Forsythe1, William A Zuke2, Avinesh Agarwalla3, Richard N Puzzitiello4, Grant H Garcia5, Gregory L Cvetanovich6, Adam B Yanke7, Nikhil N Verma7, Anthony A Romeo8. 1. Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.. Electronic address: brian.forsythe@rushortho.com. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, New York, U.S.A. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tufts University Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A. 5. Seattle Orthopaedic Center, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A. 6. Division of Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopaedics, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio. 7. Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. 8. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To directly compare subjective and objective outcomes of arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (ASPBT) below the bicipital groove and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis (OSPBT) performed with interference screw fixation. METHODS: A total of 77 patients indicated for biceps tenodesis who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were randomized into the ASPBT and OSPBT groups. All tenodesis procedures implemented PEEK (polyether ether ketone) interference screws. Patients underwent a clinical examination that included range of motion and strength assessment at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Patients completed the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, and Constant score preoperatively and at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS:Seventy-five patients were analyzed with a mean age of 50.3 ± 10.4 years and a mean body mass index of 28.9 ± 6.3. All patients had arthroscopic evidence of biceps pathology and underwent either an ASPBT (n = 37) or OSPBT (n = 38). The surgical time was significantly greater for ASPBT than for OSPBT (16.9 ± 8.4 minutes vs 9.8 ± 3.1 minutes, P < .001). One patient underwent conversion from the ASPBT group to the OSPBT group because of shearing of a severely attenuated tendon preventing an ASPBT. No significant difference (P > .05) was found in strength or anterior shoulder pain at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year, and no significant difference (P > .05) was found in clinical outcome scores (ASES, Constant subjective, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation) between the 2 groups at 6 months and 1 year. The improvement in the ASES score exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (12 points) in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: No differences in patient-reported outcome measures, functional outcomes, or complication rates were found after ASPBT compared with OSPBT. However, the results of this investigation must be interpreted with caution because this study may be underpowered to detect statistical differences. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, randomized controlled trial.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To directly compare subjective and objective outcomes of arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (ASPBT) below the bicipital groove and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis (OSPBT) performed with interference screw fixation. METHODS: A total of 77 patients indicated for biceps tenodesis who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were randomized into the ASPBT and OSPBT groups. All tenodesis procedures implemented PEEK (polyether ether ketone) interference screws. Patients underwent a clinical examination that included range of motion and strength assessment at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Patients completed the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, and Constant score preoperatively and at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were analyzed with a mean age of 50.3 ± 10.4 years and a mean body mass index of 28.9 ± 6.3. All patients had arthroscopic evidence of biceps pathology and underwent either an ASPBT (n = 37) or OSPBT (n = 38). The surgical time was significantly greater for ASPBT than for OSPBT (16.9 ± 8.4 minutes vs 9.8 ± 3.1 minutes, P < .001). One patient underwent conversion from the ASPBT group to the OSPBT group because of shearing of a severely attenuated tendon preventing an ASPBT. No significant difference (P > .05) was found in strength or anterior shoulder pain at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year, and no significant difference (P > .05) was found in clinical outcome scores (ASES, Constant subjective, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation) between the 2 groups at 6 months and 1 year. The improvement in the ASES score exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (12 points) in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: No differences in patient-reported outcome measures, functional outcomes, or complication rates were found after ASPBT compared with OSPBT. However, the results of this investigation must be interpreted with caution because this study may be underpowered to detect statistical differences. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, randomized controlled trial.
Authors: Jason E Meldau; Hassan Farooq; Nickolas G Garbis; Theodore L Schoenfeldt; Dane H Salazar Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Date: 2022-06-02