Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Research article

Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction

Authors: Justin O. Aflatooni, Brett D. Meeks, Andrew W. Froehle, Kevin F. Bonner

Published in: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Biceps tenotomy and tenodesis are surgical treatments for pathology of the proximal tendon of the long head of the biceps. There is debate over which procedure provides better patient outcomes.

Purpose

Compare patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction between biceps tenotomy and tenodesis.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study including all patients undergoing arthroscopic biceps tenodesis or tenotomy as part of more extensive shoulder surgery with a single surgeon. Concomitant procedures included rotator cuff repair, subacromial decompression, acromioclavicular joint resection, and debridement. Patients 36–81 years old were contacted by phone at > 2-year post-operatively to complete a biceps-specific outcome questionnaire. Subject decision not to participate was the sole exclusion criterion. Satisfaction scores and frequencies of potential biceps-related downsides (biceps cramping/spasms, biceps pain, shoulder pain, weakness, cosmetic deformity) were analyzed for the effects of procedure, sex, and age.

Results

Satisfaction score distributions were similar between patients with tenodesis and patients with tenotomy (χ2 = 8.34, P = 0.08), although slightly more patients with tenodesis than patients with tenotomy reported being satisfied or very satisfied (96% versus 91%). Perceived downsides occurred more frequently among patients with tenotomy than in patients with tenodesis: 59% of patients with tenotomy reported ≥ 1 downside, versus 37% of patients with tenodesis (P < 0.01). In patients reporting ≥ 1 downside, distributions of total downsides differed between procedures (χ2 = 10.04, P = 0.04): patients with tenotomy were more likely to report multiple concurrent downsides than were patients with tenodesis (31% versus 16%). Each individual downside tended to be reported as present by a greater proportion of patients with tenotomy than patients with tenodesis. Sex had no effect on satisfaction or downsides, but there was a trend for older patients to report higher satisfaction and fewer downsides.

Conclusions

Biceps tenotomy and tenodesis are both viable treatments for proximal biceps tendon pathology, yielding high patient satisfaction. There were trends toward greater satisfaction and fewer problems in patients with tenodesis. Still, younger patients with tenodesis did report perceived downsides. Alternatively, older patients tended to be more satisfied with both procedures overall. Regardless of procedure, most patients receiving either tenotomy or tenodesis would undergo their respective surgery again.

Level of Evidence

Level III evidence, retrospective comparative cohort study
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Beal DP, Williamson EE, Ly JQ, et al. Association of biceps tendon tears with rotator cuff abnormalities: degree of correlation with tears of the anterior and superior portions of the rotator cuff. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:633–9.CrossRef Beal DP, Williamson EE, Ly JQ, et al. Association of biceps tendon tears with rotator cuff abnormalities: degree of correlation with tears of the anterior and superior portions of the rotator cuff. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:633–9.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Virk MS, Cole BJ. Proximal biceps tendon and rotator cuff tears. Clin Sports Med. 2016;35:153–61.CrossRef Virk MS, Cole BJ. Proximal biceps tendon and rotator cuff tears. Clin Sports Med. 2016;35:153–61.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Hsu AR, Ghodadra NS, Provencher MT, Lewis PB, Bach BR. Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: a review of clinical outcomes and biomechanical results. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2011;20:326–32.CrossRef Hsu AR, Ghodadra NS, Provencher MT, Lewis PB, Bach BR. Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: a review of clinical outcomes and biomechanical results. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2011;20:326–32.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Boileau P, Baqué F, Valerio L, Ahrens P, Chuinard C, Trojani C. Isolated arthroscopic biceps tenotomy or tenodesis improves symptoms in patients with massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:747–57.CrossRef Boileau P, Baqué F, Valerio L, Ahrens P, Chuinard C, Trojani C. Isolated arthroscopic biceps tenotomy or tenodesis improves symptoms in patients with massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:747–57.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Frost A, Zafar MS, Maffulli N. Tenotomy versus tenodesis in the management of pathologic lesions of the tendon of the long head of the biceps brachii. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37:828–33.CrossRef Frost A, Zafar MS, Maffulli N. Tenotomy versus tenodesis in the management of pathologic lesions of the tendon of the long head of the biceps brachii. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37:828–33.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Oh JH, Lee YH, Kim SH, et al. Comparison of treatment for superior labrum-biceps complex lesions with concomitant rotator cuff repair: a prospective randomized, comparative analysis of debridement, biceps tenotomy, and biceps tenodesis. Arthroscopy. 2016;32:958–67.CrossRef Oh JH, Lee YH, Kim SH, et al. Comparison of treatment for superior labrum-biceps complex lesions with concomitant rotator cuff repair: a prospective randomized, comparative analysis of debridement, biceps tenotomy, and biceps tenodesis. Arthroscopy. 2016;32:958–67.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Gurnani N, van Deurzen DF, Janmaat VT, van den Bekerom MP. Tenotomy or tenodesis for pathology of the long head of the biceps brachii: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24:3765–71.CrossRef Gurnani N, van Deurzen DF, Janmaat VT, van den Bekerom MP. Tenotomy or tenodesis for pathology of the long head of the biceps brachii: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24:3765–71.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Meraner D, Sternberg C, Vega J, Hahne J, Kleine M, Leuzinger J. Arthroscopic tenodesis versus tenotomy of the long head of biceps tendon in simultaneous rotator cuff repair. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016;136:101–6.CrossRef Meraner D, Sternberg C, Vega J, Hahne J, Kleine M, Leuzinger J. Arthroscopic tenodesis versus tenotomy of the long head of biceps tendon in simultaneous rotator cuff repair. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016;136:101–6.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Angelo R. Surgical management of proximal long head biceps tendon disorders. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2018;26:176–80.CrossRef Angelo R. Surgical management of proximal long head biceps tendon disorders. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2018;26:176–80.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Al Qahtani SM, Bicknell RT. Outcomes following long head of biceps tendon tenodesis. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2016;9:378–87.CrossRef Al Qahtani SM, Bicknell RT. Outcomes following long head of biceps tendon tenodesis. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2016;9:378–87.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Sears BW, Spencer EE, Getz CL. Humeral fracture following subpectoral biceps tenodesis in 2 active, healthy patients. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2011;20:e7–e11.CrossRef Sears BW, Spencer EE, Getz CL. Humeral fracture following subpectoral biceps tenodesis in 2 active, healthy patients. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2011;20:e7–e11.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Erickson BJ, Basques BA, Griffin JW, et al. The effect of concomitant biceps tenodesis on reoperation rates after rotator cuff repair: a review of a large private-payer database from 2007 to 2014. Arthroscopy. 2017;33:1301–7.CrossRef Erickson BJ, Basques BA, Griffin JW, et al. The effect of concomitant biceps tenodesis on reoperation rates after rotator cuff repair: a review of a large private-payer database from 2007 to 2014. Arthroscopy. 2017;33:1301–7.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Osbahr DC, Diamond AB, Speer KP. The cosmetic appearance of the biceps muscle after long-head tenotomy versus tenodesis. Arthroscopy. 2002;18:483–7.CrossRef Osbahr DC, Diamond AB, Speer KP. The cosmetic appearance of the biceps muscle after long-head tenotomy versus tenodesis. Arthroscopy. 2002;18:483–7.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Abraham VT, Tan BH, Kumar VP. Systematic review of biceps tenodesis: arthroscopic versus open. Arthroscopy. 2016;32:365–71.CrossRef Abraham VT, Tan BH, Kumar VP. Systematic review of biceps tenodesis: arthroscopic versus open. Arthroscopy. 2016;32:365–71.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Nord KD, Smith GB, Mauck BM. Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis using suture anchors through the subclavian portal. Arthroscopy. 2005;21:248–52.CrossRef Nord KD, Smith GB, Mauck BM. Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis using suture anchors through the subclavian portal. Arthroscopy. 2005;21:248–52.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Hufeland M, Wickle S, Verde PE, Krauspe R, Patzer T. Biceps tenodesis versus tenotomy in isolated LHB lesions: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Arthrosc Sports Med. 2019;139:961–70. Hufeland M, Wickle S, Verde PE, Krauspe R, Patzer T. Biceps tenodesis versus tenotomy in isolated LHB lesions: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Arthrosc Sports Med. 2019;139:961–70.
17.
go back to reference Slenker NR, Lawson K, Ciccotti MG, Dodson CC, Cohen SB. Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: clinical outcomes. Arthroscopy. 2012;28:576–82.CrossRef Slenker NR, Lawson K, Ciccotti MG, Dodson CC, Cohen SB. Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: clinical outcomes. Arthroscopy. 2012;28:576–82.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Meeks BD, Meeks NM, Froehle AW, Wareing E, Bonner KF. Patient satisfaction after biceps tenotomy. Ortho J Sports Med. 2017;5:2325967117707737. Meeks BD, Meeks NM, Froehle AW, Wareing E, Bonner KF. Patient satisfaction after biceps tenotomy. Ortho J Sports Med. 2017;5:2325967117707737.
19.
go back to reference Almeida A, Roveda G, Valin MR, Almeida NC. Avaliação da força de flexão do cotovelo após a tenotomia artroscópica do cabo longo do bíceps. Rev Bras Ortop. 2007;42:367–72.CrossRef Almeida A, Roveda G, Valin MR, Almeida NC. Avaliação da força de flexão do cotovelo após a tenotomia artroscópica do cabo longo do bíceps. Rev Bras Ortop. 2007;42:367–72.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Castricini R, Familiari F, De Gori M, et al. Tenodesis is not superior to tenotomy in the treatment of the long head of biceps tendon lesions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26:169–75.CrossRef Castricini R, Familiari F, De Gori M, et al. Tenodesis is not superior to tenotomy in the treatment of the long head of biceps tendon lesions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26:169–75.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Leroux T, Chahal J, Wasserstein D, Verma NN, Romeo AA. A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes after concurrent rotator cuff repair and long head biceps tenodesis or tenotomy. Sports Health. 2015;7:303–7.CrossRef Leroux T, Chahal J, Wasserstein D, Verma NN, Romeo AA. A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes after concurrent rotator cuff repair and long head biceps tenodesis or tenotomy. Sports Health. 2015;7:303–7.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Shang X, Chen J, Chen S. A meta-analysis comparing tenotomy and tenodesis for treating rotator cuff tears combined with long head of the biceps tendon lesions. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0185788.CrossRef Shang X, Chen J, Chen S. A meta-analysis comparing tenotomy and tenodesis for treating rotator cuff tears combined with long head of the biceps tendon lesions. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0185788.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Lee HJ, Jeong JY, Kim CK, Kim YS. Surgical treatment of lesions of the long head of the biceps brachii tendon with rotator cuff tear: a prospective randomized clinical trial comparing the clinical results of tenotomy and tenodesis. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2016;25:1107–14.CrossRef Lee HJ, Jeong JY, Kim CK, Kim YS. Surgical treatment of lesions of the long head of the biceps brachii tendon with rotator cuff tear: a prospective randomized clinical trial comparing the clinical results of tenotomy and tenodesis. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2016;25:1107–14.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Frank RM, Cotter EJ, Strauss EJ, Jazrawi LM, Romeo AA. Management of biceps tendon pathology: from the glenoid to the radial tuberosity. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018;26:e77–89.CrossRef Frank RM, Cotter EJ, Strauss EJ, Jazrawi LM, Romeo AA. Management of biceps tendon pathology: from the glenoid to the radial tuberosity. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018;26:e77–89.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Hassan S, Patel V. Biceps tenodesis versus biceps tenotomy for biceps tendinitis without rotator cuff tears. J Clinical Ortho Trauma. 2019;10:248–56.CrossRef Hassan S, Patel V. Biceps tenodesis versus biceps tenotomy for biceps tendinitis without rotator cuff tears. J Clinical Ortho Trauma. 2019;10:248–56.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Galdi B, Southren DL, Brabston EW, et al. Patients have strong preference and perceptions for biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis. Arthroscopy. 2016;32:2444–50.CrossRef Galdi B, Southren DL, Brabston EW, et al. Patients have strong preference and perceptions for biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis. Arthroscopy. 2016;32:2444–50.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Park JS, Kim SH, Jung HJ, Lee YH, Oh JH. A prospective randomized study comparing the interference screw and suture anchor techniques for biceps tenodesis. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45:440–8.CrossRef Park JS, Kim SH, Jung HJ, Lee YH, Oh JH. A prospective randomized study comparing the interference screw and suture anchor techniques for biceps tenodesis. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45:440–8.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction
Authors
Justin O. Aflatooni
Brett D. Meeks
Andrew W. Froehle
Kevin F. Bonner
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1749-799X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-1581-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 1/2020 Go to the issue