Funnel Tenotomy Versus Intracuff Tenodesis for Lesions of the Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Associated With Rotator Cuff Tears

Cho, Nam Su; Won, Sang; Rhee, Yong Girl

doi:10.1177/0363546514523719

Cited by 56 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Zhang et al 13 assessed that Constant score improved equally and significantly in both groups (tenotomy or tenodesis), as well as VAS for pain at 2 weeks from the surgery (p<0.001). Similarly, comparable improvements at follow-up were observed by Cho et al ,10 who showed results of patients undergoing funnel tenotomy or intracuff tenodesis. In a series by Walch et al ,4 307 shoulders in 291 patients underwent arthroscopy for rRC tears repair and biceps tenotomy.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 80%

“…Biz et al 14 showed in a large cohort of 252 subjects that UCLA score similarly improves in patients who underwent to tenotomy, tenodesis at the rotator interval or subpectoral tenodesis. Comparable improvements of UCLA at follow-up were also observed by Cho et al ,10 who showed results of patients undergoing funnel tenotomy or intracuff tenodesis. Checchia et al 18 evaluated 15 adult patients who underwent arthroscopic RC repair associated with tenodesis of the LHB.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 70%

“…Of these, only one compared the outcomes of tenotomy and tenodesis. In this study,10 no superiority of one of the techniques was demonstrated, as anterior flexion of the shoulder was better in the tenodesis group, whereas abduction improved more in the tenotomy group at final follow-up. According to the remaining studies, a comparable improvement in ROM was observed in patients who underwent tenotomy or tenodesis.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 58%

“…An improvement of the movements at final follow-up was achieved in five studies for anterior flexion and in three studies for abduction. A slight worsening of the ROM was otherwise observed in 2 studies—one for anterior flexion (−0.2°)10 and one for abduction (1.4°)19 Cho et al 10 compared tenotomy and tenodesis, showing better improvement in anterior flexion for the tenodesis group. Furthermore, Jeong et al 19 compared open subpectoral tenodesis outcomes with arthroscopic intracuff tenodesis.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 3 more Smart Citations

No difference between tenotomy vs tenodesis for the long head of the biceps tendinopathy in rotator cuff repair: a systematic review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 70%

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 58%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 2 more Smart Citations

No difference between tenotomy vs tenodesis for the long head of the biceps tendinopathy in rotator cuff repair: a systematic review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Cho et al . [20] and Meraner et al . [26] used median and range in reporting their relevant outcomes and were unresponsive to our query for original data, so we used reliable formulas to translate median and range into mean and standard deviation (SD) for the purpose of gathering a comprehensive database [27–30].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta-analysis comparing tenotomy and tenodesis for treating rotator cuff tears combined with long head of the biceps tendon lesions

Shang

Chen

2017

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe purpose of this meta-analysis was to assess whether there were differences in the outcomes between tenotomy and tenodesis in treating LHBT lesions combined with rotator cuff repairs.MethodsUsing Medline, Embase, and Cochrane, we searched for articles comparing tenotomy and tenodesis combined with rotator cuff repair which were published before April 2016 with the terms “biceps”, “tenotomy”, “tenodesis”, and “rotator cuff”. The controlled clinical studies that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were assessed for quality of methodology by utilizing the Coleman score.ResultsOn the basis of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, ten articles (903 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. The Coleman score ranged between 40 and 89 in the included studies. The results showed that the incidence of the popeye sign (OR, 2.777, P = 0.000) were higher in tenotomy group compared with tenodesis group when concomitant rotator cuff repair. Statistically significant difference in favor of tenodesis was observed for Constant score (SMD, -0.230, P = 0.025). As for the arm cramping pain, patient satisfaction, VAS score, ASES score and UCLA increased score, the strength and the range of motion, there were no significant differences between tenodesis and tenotomy of the LHBT, corresponding to the currently available results in the literature.ConclusionsBased on this meta-analysis, both tenotomy and tenodesis are effective in pain relief and function improvement in patients with repairable rotator cuff tears. No significant differences in post-operative functional outcome between tenotomy and tenodesis for the treatment of LHBT lesions were observed except for a lower Constant score and higher risk of Popeye deformity in tenotomy.

show abstract

Clinical relevance of the anatomy of the long head bicipital groove, an evidence‐based review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pathology in the bicipital groove can be a source of anterior shoulder pain. Many studies have compared treatment techniques for the long head biceps tendon (LHBT) without showing any clinically significant differences. As the LHBT is closely related to the bicipital groove, anatomical aspects of this groove could also be implicated in surgical outcomes. The aim of this review is to contribute to developing the optimal surgical treatment of LHBT pathology based on clinically relevant aspects of the bicipital groove. Medline/PubMed was systematically searched using key words “bicipital” and “groove” and combinations of their synonyms. Studies reporting on evolution, embryonic development, morphometry, vascularization, innervation, and surgical treatment of the LHBT and the bicipital groove were included. The length of the bicipital groove reported in the included studies ranged from 81.00 mm to 87.33 mm, width from 7.74 mm to 11.60 mm, and depth from 3.70 mm to 6.00 mm. The anatomy of the bicipital groove shows a bottleneck narrowing approximately two‐thirds from superior. The transverse humeral ligament can constrain the bicipital groove and could be involved in anterior shoulder pain. When either LHBT tenotomy or tenodesis is performed, routinely releasing the transverse ligament could decrease postoperative anterior shoulder pain, which has frequently been reported in the literature. To avoid the bottle neck narrowing, a location below the bicipital groove may be preferred for biceps tenodesis over a more proximal tenodesis site. Level of evidence: IV.

show abstract

Funnel Tenotomy Versus Intracuff Tenodesis for Lesions of the Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Associated With Rotator Cuff Tears

Cited by 56 publications

References 34 publications

No difference between tenotomy vs tenodesis for the long head of the biceps tendinopathy in rotator cuff repair: a systematic review

No difference between tenotomy vs tenodesis for the long head of the biceps tendinopathy in rotator cuff repair: a systematic review

A meta-analysis comparing tenotomy and tenodesis for treating rotator cuff tears combined with long head of the biceps tendon lesions

Clinical relevance of the anatomy of the long head bicipital groove, an evidence‐based review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About