Background:Proximal biceps pathology is a significant factor in shoulder pain. Surgical treatment options include biceps tenotomy and subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Tenotomy is a simple procedure, but it may produce visible deformity, subjective cramping, or loss of supination strength. Tenodesis is a comparatively technical procedure involving a longer recovery, but it has been hypothesized to achieve better outcomes in younger active patients (<55 years).Hypothesis:This study investigated the outcomes of younger patients who underwent either a biceps tenotomy or tenodesis as part of treatment for shoulder pain. The hypothesis was that, apart from cosmetic deformity, there will be no difference in outcome between the 2 treatment options.Study Design:Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:Isometric strength and endurance testing of operative and nonoperative shoulders for forearm supination (FS) and elbow flexion (EF) were tested utilizing an isometric dynamometer. Objective physical assessment was also performed. Subjective outcomes using the modified American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES); Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH); visual analog scale (VAS); and perceived biceps symptoms were collected.Results:A total of 42 patients (22 tenotomy, 20 tenodesis) with an average follow-up of 3.3 years were studied. The average age at follow-up was 49.9 years. Thirty-five percent (7/20) of tenotomy patients exhibited a “Popeye” deformity, compared with 18.2% (4/22) of tenodesis patients. Strength prior to fatiguing exercise was similar between tenodesis and tenotomy for FS (6.9 vs 7.3 lbs; P < .05), EF in neutral (35.4 vs 35.4 lbs), and EF in supination (33.8 vs 34.2 lbs). Strength was not significantly different between groups for isometric strength and endurance measures. Subjective functional outcome measured by the DASH, ASES, and VAS scores were similar between groups. Frequency of complaints of cramping was higher in the tenotomy group (4/20 vs 1/22), and complaints of pain were higher in the tenodesis group (11/22 vs 5/20).Conclusion:Despite increased demands and activity placed on biceps function in a younger population, this study showed no differences in functional and subjective outcome measurements. The choice between biceps tenotomy and tenodesis for pathology of the proximal biceps tendon can continue to be based on surgeon and patient preference.

No abstract

The current study compared tunnel diameter as an independent risk factor for fixation failure from the coracoid after transcoracoid coracoclavicular reconstruction. The effect of variation in coracoid size and scapular bone density on fixation failure was also studied. Sixty-two cadaveric scapulae were randomized into 1 of 4 groups: a control group with no coracoid hole, a group with a 4-mm transcoracoid tunnel, a group with a 6-mm transcoracoid tunnel, and a group with a socket technique using a 6-mm hole superiorly with a 4-mm hole inferiorly. Bone density measures for all specimens were performed. Coracoid dimensions were quantified. Using a cortical button device, all specimens were loaded to failure with an Instron servohydraulic testing machine (Instron Corp, Canton, Massachusetts). All drilled specimens failed by button pullout, and all control specimens failed by coracoid fracture. Average pullout strength for each tunnel subgroup was as follows: 4 mm, 296.9 N; 6 mm, 146.2 N; 6-4 socket, 261.8 N; control, 762.9 N. No difference was found with respect to tunnel subgroups in base height (P=.25) or bone density (P=.44). Load to failure for the control group was significantly higher than for the other 3 techniques. The 4-mm tunnel load to failure was significantly higher than that for the 6-mm tunnel (P=.006). No difference was found between the 4-mm tunnel and the 6-4 socket technique (P=.853). Although it was not statistically significant, a very strong trend was seen toward increased strength of the 6-4 socket over the 6-mm tunnel (P=.051). The study results show that when employing a transcoracoid reconstruction technique, a 4-mm tunnel technique is significantly stronger than a 6-mm tunnel technique. None of the coracoids drilled with the various tunnels approached the strength of the native coracoid controls using a looped wire technique.

No abstract

Educational Objectives As a result of reading this article, physicians should be able to: 1. Describe the pathoanatomy and clinical presentation of femoroacetabular impingement and acetabular labral tears. 2. Compare the different radiographic findings associated with cam and pincer impingement. 3. Discuss potential treatment options for femoroacetabular impingement and acetabular labral tears. 4. Review and summarize the current outcome studies for the differing treatment options of femoroacetabular impingement and acetabular labral tears.