Biceps tenodesis versus biceps tenotomy for biceps tendinitis without rotator cuff tears

Abstract

Disorders of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHB) are a well-recognised cause of shoulder pain despite the function of the long head of the biceps remaining poorly understood. There has been a dramatic rise in the number of biceps tenodesis procedures being performed in the last decade. This may partly be attributed to concerns regarding residual cosmetic deformity and pain after biceps tenotomy though there is little evidence to suggest that functional outcomes of tenodesis are superior to biceps tenotomy. Current literature focuses on LHB disorders with concomitant rotator cuff tears. The aim of this review is to discuss the anatomy of the LHB, the pathogenesis of tendinopathy of the LHB, indications of biceps tenodesis and tenotomy and compare the current literature on the functional outcomes of these procedures for LHB disorders in the absence of rotator cuff tears.

Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction

“…Previous studies had similar results. Castricini et al and Hassan et al found little to no significant differences in downsides between the two procedures, except that patients with tenotomy experienced more shoulder pain as well as biceps spasms and cramping [19,25]. Lee et al also found no difference in outcomes of function or pain between tenodesis and patients with tenotomy [23].…”

Small‑incision open distal subpectoral vs. arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis for biceps long head tendon lesions with repair of rotator cuff tears

“…Lesions of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) are among the most common causes of shoulder disorders and pain (1,2). LHBT lesions alone are relatively rare; they are mostly associated with other lesions of the shoulder joint, particularly rotator cuff (RC) injury (1,(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8). The normal physiological function of the LHBT depends on the role of the block system, which is mainly composed of supraspinatus (SSP), coracohumeral ligament, superior glenohumeral ligament and subscapularis (SSC) (9).…”

Costs, Complications, and Reoperations Associated With Primary Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair With or Without Acromioplasty and/or Biceps Tenodesis

“…[20][21][22][23] Tenotomy and tenodesis have been shown to have similar outcomes, but tenotomy has been shown to have an increased rate of cramping and deformity. 21 Biceps tenodesis techniques differ by approach (open vs arthroscopic), location (proximal, suprapectoral, subpectoral), and fixation type (soft tissue to soft tissue vs soft tissue to bone). [22][23][24][25][26] Although functional and clinical outcomes following BT with or without RCR repair are favorable, 24,[27][28][29] concerns remain about the cost effectiveness of BT over the long-term.…”

“… 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 Lesions of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) are also often associated with RCTs and may be managed nonoperatively, with a tenotomy, or a BT. 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 Tenotomy and tenodesis have been shown to have similar outcomes, but tenotomy has been shown to have an increased rate of cramping and deformity. 21 Biceps tenodesis techniques differ by approach (open vs arthroscopic), location (proximal, suprapectoral, subpectoral), and fixation type (soft tissue to soft tissue vs soft tissue to bone).…”

“… 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 Tenotomy and tenodesis have been shown to have similar outcomes, but tenotomy has been shown to have an increased rate of cramping and deformity. 21 Biceps tenodesis techniques differ by approach (open vs arthroscopic), location (proximal, suprapectoral, subpectoral), and fixation type (soft tissue to soft tissue vs soft tissue to bone). 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 …”