Liam A Peebles1, Kaare S Midtgaard2, Zachary S Aman3, Brenton W Douglass1, Philip-Christian Nolte1, Peter J Millett4, Capt Matthew T Provencher5. 1. Steadman Philippon Research Institute, Vail, Colorado, U.S.A. 2. Steadman Philippon Research Institute, Vail, Colorado, U.S.A.; Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Norway; Norwegian Armed Forces Joint Medical Services, Sessvollmoen, Norway. 3. Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. 4. Steadman Philippon Research Institute, Vail, Colorado, U.S.A.; The Steadman Clinic, Vail, Colorado, U.S.A. 5. Steadman Philippon Research Institute, Vail, Colorado, U.S.A.; The Steadman Clinic, Vail, Colorado, U.S.A.. Electronic address: mprovencher@thesteadmanclinic.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess failure rates and patient reported outcomes following revision of failed proximal long head of the biceps (LHB) tenodesis. METHODS: Patients from an active-military population who underwent revision proximal (suprapectoral) to distal (subpectoral) LHB tenodesis were prospectively enrolled. Patients were included if they were between the ages of 16 and 60 years presenting after a previous biceps tenodesis with mechanical failure and clinical failure, defined as Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) or American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) <70. Exclusion criteria were concomitant rotator cuff repair or debridement, full-thickness rotator cuff tear, extensive labral tears, or any evidence of glenohumeral arthritis. Pre- and postoperative SANE and ASES were documented and analyzed. RESULTS: From 2004 to 2010, a total of 12 patients (all male) with a mean age of 39.9 years (range, 30-54 years) were assessed at a mean follow-up time of 29 months (range, 24-38 months). Nine patients presented with a failed tenodesis construct located at the top of the bicipital groove and 9 patients had LHB tendons originally affixed with an interference screw. Diagnostic arthroscopy revealed that the majority of patients (10/12) had excessive scarring at the site of previous fixation. Mean preoperative assessments of SANE (70.4) and ASES (59.9) improved postoperatively to SANE (90.3; P < .01) and ASES (89.8; P < .01). No patients were lost due to follow-up, and there were no reported complications or failures. All patients returned to full active duty and were able to perform all required physical tests before returning to their vocation. CONCLUSIONS: Patients presenting with symptoms following a proximal LHB tenodesis can be successfully converted to a distal (subpectoral) LHB tenodesis with favorable outcomes. Although in a small sample, there was excessive scarring and synovitis in a majority, which improved significantly when treated with a revision subpectoral tenodesis with minimal complication risk and no reported failures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV (Therapeutic case series).
PURPOSE: To assess failure rates and patient reported outcomes following revision of failed proximal long head of the biceps (LHB) tenodesis. METHODS:Patients from an active-military population who underwent revision proximal (suprapectoral) to distal (subpectoral) LHB tenodesis were prospectively enrolled. Patients were included if they were between the ages of 16 and 60 years presenting after a previous biceps tenodesis with mechanical failure and clinical failure, defined as Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) or American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) <70. Exclusion criteria were concomitant rotator cuff repair or debridement, full-thickness rotator cuff tear, extensive labral tears, or any evidence of glenohumeral arthritis. Pre- and postoperative SANE and ASES were documented and analyzed. RESULTS: From 2004 to 2010, a total of 12 patients (all male) with a mean age of 39.9 years (range, 30-54 years) were assessed at a mean follow-up time of 29 months (range, 24-38 months). Nine patients presented with a failed tenodesis construct located at the top of the bicipital groove and 9 patients had LHB tendons originally affixed with an interference screw. Diagnostic arthroscopy revealed that the majority of patients (10/12) had excessive scarring at the site of previous fixation. Mean preoperative assessments of SANE (70.4) and ASES (59.9) improved postoperatively to SANE (90.3; P < .01) and ASES (89.8; P < .01). No patients were lost due to follow-up, and there were no reported complications or failures. All patients returned to full active duty and were able to perform all required physical tests before returning to their vocation. CONCLUSIONS:Patients presenting with symptoms following a proximal LHB tenodesis can be successfully converted to a distal (subpectoral) LHB tenodesis with favorable outcomes. Although in a small sample, there was excessive scarring and synovitis in a majority, which improved significantly when treated with a revision subpectoral tenodesis with minimal complication risk and no reported failures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV (Therapeutic case series).