Dataset Information

Arthroscopic Proximal Subpectoral Tenodesis of the Long Head of the Biceps.

ABSTRACT: Biceps tenodesis is a common treatment method for biceps pathology. When tenodesis is located in intra-articular or suprapectoral areas, the biceps is fixed proximally to the zone of degeneration and inflammation, which can cause residual pain as a possible postsurgical complication. The main advantage of this method is that this technique is comparatively easy and can be performed arthroscopically. Typically, in terms of professional athletes, the best post-biceps tenodesis results are observed after undergoing subpectoral tenodesis because of the solid fixation and localization distally to any kind of biceps tendon degeneration and inflammation zone. However, subpectoral tenodesis has several disadvantages, as it is an open procedure that can lead to possible scar and hematoma formation, infection, bioabsorbable screw reaction, neurovascular injury, and fractures. Soft-tissue tenodesis to the proximal part of pectoralis major tendon is a well-known step in shoulder arthroplasty surgery and shows acceptable results. We suggest a technique of proximal subpectoral arthroscopic tenodesis, which combines the advantages of the location in the subpectoral zone with an all-suture anchor and that of soft-tissue tenodesis to the pectoralis major tendon, which can be performed fully arthroscopically, improving results in terms of healing by increasing the contact area.

SUBMITTER: Milenin O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7823062 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn young and active patients, long head of biceps (LHB) tenodesis has become a common procedure for managing LHB pathology, but it remains unclear whether it is performed in isolation or along with other shoulder procedures and whether open and arthroscopic techniques produce different complications.Questions/purposesWe sought to determine and compare open and arthroscopic LHB tenodesis in terms of (a) trends in overall use, (b) trends in use in isolation and in association with rotator cuff repair (RCR) and superior labral tear from anterior-to-posterior (SLAP) debridement/repair, and (c) the rates of post-operative complications.MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of data from an insurance database to identify LHB tenodesis procedures performed from 2011 to 2014. The overall annual rates of open and arthroscopic LHB tenodesis were determined and then stratified according to concurrent RCR and SLAP repair/debridement. A multivariate logistic regression analysis that controlled for patient demographics (age, sex, comorbidity) was performed.ResultsOverall, 8547 patients underwent LHB tenodesis, of which 43.5% were open and 56.5% were arthroscopic procedures. There was a significant increase in the utilization of LHB tenodesis from 2011 to 2014. In isolation, open LHB tenodesis was the more common technique overall and by year. Arthroscopic LHB tenodesis was the most common tenodesis technique performed in conjunction with RCR and SLAP repair/debridement. The overall complication rate was 2.9%; only wound dehiscence demonstrated a difference between techniques.ConclusionsThe rates of open and arthroscopic LHB tenodesis procedures increased significantly from 2011 to 2014, with open techniques more common when LHB tenodesis is performed in isolation and arthroscopic techniques more common when performed as a concomitant procedure. Our use of a population database did not allow us to evaluate biomechanical or cost-related phenomena, and future research should examine these and other relevant differences between these two LHB tenodesis techniques.

Project description:Optimal treatment of the diseased long head of the biceps (LHB) tendon during rotator cuff repair remains a topic of debate: tenotomy or tenodesis. A recent meta analysis revealed no difference in strength or functional outcome between treatments. The included studies varied in methodological quality, and only two were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). As strong evidence in favor of either tenotomy or tenodesis is still lacking, we designed this randomized controlled trial to compare functional outcomes after tenotomy and tenodesis when performed in adjunct to arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.Patients older than 50 years with a supraspinatus and/or infraspinatus tendon rupture sized smaller than 3 cm, who are encountered with LHB pathology, will be randomized to either LHB tenotomy or LHB tenodesis. Clinical and patient-reported data will be collected pre-operatively, 6 weeks, 3 months and 1 year after surgery. Primary outcome is overall shoulder function evaluated with the Constant score at 1 year after surgery. As additional measures of shoulder function, two patient reported outcomes (the Dutch Oxford Shoulder Test and the Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder and Hand questionnaire) will be assessed. Other evaluations include cosmetic appearance evaluated by the "Popeye" deformity, elbow flexion strength, arm cramping pain, MRI-based location of the biceps tendon, quality of life, and duration of surgery. To detect non-inferiority with a one-sided, two-sample t-test with 80 % power and a significance level (alpha) of 0.025, the required sample size is 98 patients.Treatment of LHB tendon lesions is performed differently around the world and meta analyses do not provide conclusive evidence in favor of one of these treatments. This study will strengthen evidence on the risks and benefits of LHB tenotomy and tenodesis in adjunct to a rotator cuff repair, which is important for managing patient expectations.Dutch Trial Register ( NTR3255 ) January 12, 2012, ClinicalTrials.gov (ID NCT02655848 ) January 14, 2016, retrospectively registered.

Dataset Information

Arthroscopic Proximal Subpectoral Tenodesis of the Long Head of the Biceps.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure