Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis: Operative technique

doi:10.1053/jars.2000.4386

Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery

Volume 16, Issue 5, July–August 2000, Pages 550-552

https://doi.org/10.1053/jars.2000.4386 Get rights and content

Abstract

Summary: Biceps tenodesis is indicated for partial biceps tendon tears or biceps tendon subluxation. We present our technique for arthroscopic biceps tenodesis.

Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery, Vol 16, No 5 (May-June), 2000: pp 550–552

Section snippets

Cuff intact

We use a standard posterior portal and enter the glenohumeral joint. The biceps tendon is visualized and areas of fraying, inflammation, or partial tear are noted. A probe is introduced anteriorly and traction is placed on the tendon to bring the extra-articular tendon within view. A spinal needle is introduced percutaneously near the anterolateral acromial border and pierces the tendon just proximal to its exit from the joint (Fig 1).

. Spinal needle pierces tendon proximal to its exit from the

Discussion

This technique of biceps tenodesis is applicable when the tendon is partially ruptured or subluxated. It is not applicable with a complete rupture because the distal tendon ordinarily cannot be identified arthroscopically; in this case, a conventional open technique is preferred.

References (9)

GM Gartsman et al.
Arthroscopic repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears: Operative technique
Oper Tech Orthop
(1998)
GM Gartsman et al.
Full-thickness tear: Arthroscopic repair
Orthop Clin North Am
(1997)
AM Crenshaw et al.
Surgical treatment of bicipital tenosynovitis
J Bone Joint Surg Am
(1966)
DM Dines et al.
Surgical treatment of lesions of the long head of the biceps
Clin Orthop
(1982)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (132)

Mild Biceps Tendonitis May Be Managed Nonoperatively During Shoulder Arthroscopy
2023, Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation
To determine whether patients with mild biceps tendonitis required revision surgery after the biceps tendon was not surgically treated, while addressing concomitant pathology, and to evaluate whether preoperative groove pain affected patient-reported outcomes.
Patients who underwent shoulder arthroscopy between 2015 and 2018 by a single surgeon for rotator cuff pathology, debridement, and distal clavicular excision (DCE), with or without subacromial decompression (SAD), and where the biceps tendon was not surgically addressed were retrospectively identified. Inclusion criteria were mild LS (<50% hyperemic appearing biceps tendon arthroscopically), and a minimum 2-year follow-up. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of revision surgery. Secondary outcomes included American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, simple shoulder test (SST), pain level, and satisfaction scores. Two sample t-tests compared postoperative patient-reported outcomes based on the presence or absence of preoperative bicipital groove tenderness.
Sixty-four of 69 eligible subjects (93%) were evaluated at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively. One out of 64 subjects underwent revision to perform a biceps tenodesis. Overall, patients had high patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) postoperatively. Ninety-seven percent of patients reported they would have the surgery again. The presence of preoperative bicipital groove tenderness had no effect on ASES (P = .62), SST (P = .83) scores, and postoperative pain (P = .65). Patients without bicipital groove pain had average respective ASES and SST scores of 93.70 ± 11.84 and 10.66 ± 2.47; those with bicipital groove pain averaged 92.00 ± 15.31 and 10.78 ± 1.87. There was no significant difference in overall satisfaction scores between patients with groove pain (9.42 ± 1.40) and those without (9.46 ± 1.38; P = .92).
Patients with mild biceps tendonitis showed favorable outcomes with low revision rates and high patient satisfaction when the biceps tendon was not surgically addressed when the primary shoulder pathology was treated during arthroscopy, independent of preoperative groove pain.
Level III, retrospective cohort study.
Subpectoral, Suprapectoral, and Top-of-Groove Biceps Tenodesis Procedures Lead to Similar Good Clinical Outcomes: Comparison of Biceps Tenodesis Procedures
2023, Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation
To determine whether there is a difference in clinical results among open subpectoral (SB), arthroscopic low-in-groove suprapectoral (SP), and arthroscopic top-of-groove (TOG) locations in terms of patient-reported outcome measures for biceps tenodesis (BT) procedures using a global, self-reporting registry.
We identified patients who underwent BT surgery in the Surgical Outcomes System registry. The inclusion criteria were isolated primary surgical procedures for BT, excluding patients with rotator cuff and labral repairs. Additional search requirements included repair location and 100% compliance with pretreatment and 2-year follow-up surveys. This study measured clinical outcomes comparing the 3 aforementioned techniques using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score before treatment and at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively. In addition, postoperative VAS pain scores were collected at 2 and 6 weeks. Statistical analysis was conducted using analysis of variance (Kruskal-Wallis test) and the Wilcoxon test.
A total of 1,923 patients from the Surgical Outcomes System registry qualified for the study; of these, 879 underwent the SB technique, 354 underwent the SP technique, and 690 underwent the TOG technique. There was no statistically significant difference in the demographic characteristics among the groups except that the TOG group was older: 60.76 years versus 54.56 years in the SB group and 54.90 years in the SP group (P < .001). In all groups, the ASES score statistically improved from before treatment (mean, 49.29 ± 0.63) to 2 years postoperatively (mean, 86.82 ± 0.80; P < .05). There were no statistically significant differences among the 3 groups in the VAS, ASES, and SANE scores at all time points (P > .12) except for the VAS score at 1 year (P = .032) and the ASES score at 3 months (P = .0159). At 1 year, the mean VAS score in the SB group versus the TOG group was 1.146 ± 1.27 versus 1.481 ± 1.62 (P = .032), but the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was not met. The 3-month ASES Index scores in the SB, SP, and TOG groups were 68.991 ± 18.64, 66.499 ± 17.89, and 67.274 ± 16.9, respectively (P = .0159), and similarly, the MCID was not met. At 2 years, the ASES scores in the SB, SP, and TOG groups improved from 49.986 ± 18.68, 49.54 ± 16.86, and 49.697 ± 7.84, respectively, preoperatively to 86.00 ± 18.09, 87.60 ± 17.69, and 86.86 ± 16.36, respectively, postoperatively (P > .12).
The SB, SP, and TOG BT procedures each resulted in excellent clinical improvement based on patient-reported outcome measures from a global registry. On the basis of the MCID, no technique was clinically superior to the other techniques in terms of VAS, ASES, or SANE scores at any time point up to 2 years.
Level III, retrospective comparative study.
Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Using an All-Suture Anchor
2022, Arthroscopy Techniques
Long head biceps tendon pathology is a substantial contributor to anterior shoulder pain and often requires surgical intervention to offer a return to normal functionality. Surgical treatment options consist of both open and arthroscopic tenodesis or tenotomy of the long head biceps brachii. Several techniques exist for tenodesis and tenotomy of the biceps, although current debate continues regarding which surgical approach is the optimal intervention for symptomatic bicep pathology. In this technical note, we describe a subpectoral biceps tenodesis of the long head bicep tendon using an all-suture anchor. Our technique offers the advantages of using an all-suture anchor that incorporates a self-tensioning mechanism with direct visualization of the tendon during biceps tenodesis and anchor insertion.
Early success of the arthroscopic-assisted locked loop suprapectoral biceps tenodesis
2021, JSES Reviews, Reports, and Techniques
There is wide variability in surgical technique for biceps tenodesis. Prior biomechanical studies have demonstrated superior ultimate and fatigue strength with a Krakow-type locked loop when compared with simple suture and lasso-loop configurations; however, this had not yet been clinically studied. The purpose of this study was to assess the short-term results an arthroscopic-assisted locked loop (ALL) suprapectoral biceps tenodesis technique.
All patients who underwent an ALL suprapectoral biceps tenodesis by a single surgeon from 2012 and 2019 with a minimum of 12-month follow-up were analyzed. Data collected included demographics, surgical indications, concomitant operative procedures, and postoperative complications of anterior shoulder “groove” pain, “Popeye deformity,” biceps muscle cramping pain, and need for revision surgery.
Forty patients who underwent an ALL suprapectoral biceps tenodesis met inclusion criteria. Patients were 55.6 ± 8.6 years of age, consisting of 28 men (57%) and 21 women (43%). The median follow-up was 19.3 months. At the latest follow-up, 1 (2%) patient had anterior shoulder “groove” pain, and no patients had a Popeye deformity or biceps muscle cramping. There were no revision biceps tenodesis procedures.
The ALL suprapectoral biceps tenodesis technique results in a low incidence of postoperative complications. At a short-term follow-up of 1 year, no patients had reoperations or revisions for failed biceps tenodesis. Groove pain was nearly absent in this series of patients.
A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Biceps Tenodesis Fixation Strengths: Fixation Type and Location Are Biomechanically Equivalent
2020, Arthroscopy - Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery
The purpose of this meta-analysis and systematic review was to critically evaluate the biomechanical outcomes of different fixation constructs for a variety of biceps tenodesis techniques in cadaveric models based on both type of fixation and location.
A PROSPERO-registered systematic review (CCRD42018109243) of the current literature was conducted with the terms “long head of biceps” AND “tenodesis” AND “biomechanics” and numerous variations thereof in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases, yielding 1,460 abstracts. After screening by eligibility criteria, 18 full-text articles were included. The individual biomechanical factors evaluated included ultimate load to failure (in newtons), stiffness (in newtons per millimeter), and cyclic displacement (in millimeters). After reviewing the included literature, we performed a quality analysis of the studies (Quality Appraisal for Cadaveric Studies scale score) and a meta-analysis comparing raw mean differences in data between the suprapectoral and subpectoral fixation location groups, as well as between the fixation construct groups.
Among the 18 included studies, 347 cadaveric specimens were evaluated for ultimate load to failure, stiffness, and cyclic displacement when comparing both location (suprapectoral vs subpectoral) and tenodesis fixation type (interference screw vs cortical button, suture anchor, or all–soft-tissue techniques). Interference screw fixation showed significantly greater mean stiffness by 8.0 N/mm (P = .013) compared with the other grouped techniques but did not show significant differences when evaluated for ultimate load to failure and cyclic displacement (P = .28 and P = .18, respectively). Additionally, no difference in construct strength was seen when comparing the fixation strength of suprapectoral versus subpectoral techniques for stiffness, ultimate load to failure, and cyclic loading (P = .47, P = .053, and P = .13, respectively).
In this meta-analysis, no significant biomechanical differences were found when the results were stratified by specific surgical technique (interference screw vs other tenodesis techniques) and location (suprapectoral vs subpectoral biceps tenodesis).
As a result of this study, when biomechanically evaluating specific tenodesis constructs, the individual clinician has the liberty of choosing the fixation technique based on his or her preference and knowledge of shortcomings of each type of fixation construct.
Arthroscopic tenodesis using a bioabsorbable interference screw and soft anchor: A case series of 60 patients
2020, Journal of Orthopaedic Science
Various arthroscopic tenodesis techniques for the treatment of long head of the biceps tendon pathologic abnormalities have been described.
This study evaluated the clinical outcomes of using a bioabsorbable interference screw and soft anchor for long head of the biceps tendon arthroscopic tenodesis.
Sixty patients treated by this technique between February 2013 and March 2015 were followed up for at least 2 years. In our operative technique, after the bone hole was made just proximal to the pectoralis major, the soft anchor was inserted at the bottom of the hole. After tenotomy of the long head of the biceps tendon proximal to the bone hole, the tendon was fixed into the bottom of the hole temporarily using the soft anchor. Finally, the tendon was fixed in the hole with a bioabsorbable interference screw.
The UCLA score 15.1 points preoperatively and 32.4 points at follow-up (p < 0.05). The Constant 55.8 points preoperatively and 93.9 points at follow-up (p < 0.01). After biceps tenodesis, no cosmetic deformities were found in 56 patients (93.3%), and four patients (6.7%) had a Popeye deformity. On postoperative magnetic resonance evaluation, the long head of the biceps tendon was located on the bicipital groove without deviation in 53 cases (88.3%), on the bicipital groove with a partial deviation in 6 cases (10.0%), and outside the bicipital groove with complete deviation (dislocated) in 1 case (1.7%).
We found that arthroscopic biceps tenodesis using a soft anchor provided a reliable means for treating biceps pathology with no cosmetic deformities and with good clinical results.

View all citing articles on Scopus

^*: Address correspondence and reprint requests to Gary M. Gartsman, M.D., Fondren Orthopedic Group, Texas Orthopedic Hospital, 7401 S. Main St, Houston, TX 77030, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]

^**: 0749-8063/00/1605-2175$3.00/0

View full text

Technical NotesArthroscopic biceps tenodesis: Operative technique*,**

Abstract

Section snippets

Cuff intact

Discussion

Oper Tech Orthop

Orthop Clin North Am

Surgical treatment of bicipital tenosynovitis

J Bone Joint Surg Am

Surgical treatment of lesions of the long head of the biceps

Clin Orthop

Technical Notes
Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis: Operative technique*,**