Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis for Treatment of Isolated Type II SLAP Lesions in a Young and Active Population

Pogorzelski, Jonas; Horan, Marilee P.; Hussain, Zaamin B.; Vap, Alexander R.; Fritz, Erik M.

doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2017.07.021

Cited by 64 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A total of 13 studies were identified that evaluated clinical outcomes after open biceps tenodesis ( Table 4 ). # Overall, 9 studies 8 , 14 , 19 – 21 , 47 , 57 , 58 , 61 (199 patients) used the ASES score as a measure of clinical outcomes, with a weighted mean value of 91.1. Additionally, 2 studies 50 , 61 (65 patients) used the Constant score, with a weighted mean value of 84.7.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes and Complications After Primary Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Versus Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis for Superior Labral Anterior-Posterior Tears or Biceps Abnormalities: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Deng

Yin

Cusano

et al. 2020

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Biceps tenodesis is a surgical treatment for both superior labral anterior-posterior (SLAP) tears and long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) abnormalities. Biceps tenodesis can be performed either above or below the pectoralis major tendon with arthroscopic or open techniques. Purpose: To analyze the outcomes and complications comparing primary arthroscopic suprapectoral versus open subpectoral biceps tenodesis for either SLAP tears or LHBT disorders. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A search strategy based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Meta-Analyses) protocol was used to include 18 articles (471 patients) from a total of 974 articles identified. Overall exclusion criteria included the following: non–English language, non–full text, biceps tenodesis with concomitant rotator cuff repair, review articles, meta-analyses, and case reports. Data were extracted and analyzed according to procedure type and tenodesis location: arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (295 patients) versus open subpectoral bicepts tenodesis (176 patients). Results: For arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis, the weighted mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score was 90.0 (97 patients) and the weighted mean Constant score was 88.7 (108 patients); for open subpectoral biceps tenodesis, the mean ASES score was 91.1 (199 patients) and mean Constant score was 84.7 (65 patients). Among the 176 patients who underwent arthroscopic biceps tenodesis, there was an overall complication rate of 9.1%. Among the 295 patients who underwent open biceps tenodesis, there was an overall complication rate of 13.5%. Both residual pain (5.7% vs 4.7%, respectively) and Popeye deformity (1.7% vs 1.0%, respectively) rates were similar between the groups. Open subpectoral biceps tenodesis had higher reoperation (3.0% vs 0.0%, respectively), wound complication (1.0% vs 0.0%, respectively), and nerve injury (0.7% vs 0.0%, respectively) rates postoperatively. A meta-analysis of 3 studies demonstrated that both methods had similar ASES scores ( P = .36) as well as all-cause complication rates (odds ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.13-4.48]; P = .26). Conclusion: Patients undergoing arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis for either SLAP tears or LHBT abnormalities had similar outcome scores and complication rates compared with those undergoing open subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Additionally, both residual pain and Popeye deformity rates were similar between the 2 groups.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes and Complications After Primary Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Versus Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis for Superior Labral Anterior-Posterior Tears or Biceps Abnormalities: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Deng

Yin

Cusano

et al. 2020

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The mobile version of the ASES questionnaire brings about many advantages. In clinical practice, several PROMs are typically administered simultaneously for shoulder pain [ 29 - 32 ]. A longer amount of time taken to fill in the PROMs may reduce the patient’s interest, which could lead to a drop in the quality of responses.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of a Mobile Version of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form: An Observational Randomized Crossover Trial

Hou¹,

Li²,

Yu³

et al. 2020

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) questionnaire is an effective tool for evaluating shoulder joint function. The development and usage of a mobile version of the ASES questionnaire has the potential to save time, money, and effort. Objective The aim of this study is to assess the equivalence between the paper and mobile versions of the ASES questionnaire and their acceptability among patients. Methods The paper and mobile versions of the ASES questionnaire were used to evaluate the shoulder joint function of 50 patients with shoulder pain. This study included patients from the shoulder clinic of Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman method were used to evaluate the agreement (reliability) of the scores obtained by the two methods (paper versus mobile). Results Of the 50 patients recruited from March 2018 to May 2019, 46 (92%) completed the study. There was a high agreement between the paper and mobile versions of the ASES questionnaire (ICC=0.979, 95% CI 0.943-0.987; P<.001). The mean difference between the scores of the mobile and paper versions was 1.0, and only 1/46 (2%) had a difference greater than the minimal clinically important difference of 12 points. About 75% of patients preferred the mobile version to the paper version. Conclusions Our study shows that the mobile version of the ASES questionnaire is comparable to the paper version, and has a higher patient preference. This could prove to be a useful tool for epidemiological studies and patient follow-up over longer periods of time.

show abstract

“…Unless there is no other effective treatment alternative, we feel that it is inherently undesirable to sacrifice a healthy tendon in the interests of treating another problem: and – absent neuromuscular disorder – no other tendon is sacrificed in this manner. While the literature would seem to indicate near universal safety after biceps tenodesis/tenotomy [ 3 , 6 - 8 , 11 ], we not infrequently see patients who have problems, such as biceps muscle cramping, a “popeye” biceps or tenodesis incisional pain, that seem directly attributable to the prior performance of these procedures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Treatment of Type Two Slap Lesion With Anatomic Suture Anchor Repair Without Biceps Tenotomy Or Tenodesis

Prodromos¹,

Finkle²,

Dawes³

et al. 2018

TOORTHJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:Poor results after repair of type 2 SLAP tears are relatively common and some have reported better results after biceps tenodesis or tenotomy than repair. In addition, some believe that the long head of the biceps is expendable. Therefore, many now favor biceps tenotomy or tenodesis over biceps anchor repair either in all patients or in older patients, reserving SLAP lesion repair only for young athletes.Hypothesis:We hypothesized that repair of the biceps anchor of the labrum would be effective in all patients regardless of age provided that care was taken not to overtighten the labrum and that rotator cuff pain as the primary pain generator had been ruled out.Methods:All patients with type 2 SLAP lesion repair by the senior author since he began repairing them with suture anchors were prospectively evaluated. Patients with more than one other concomitant procedure, simultaneous rotator cuff repair or worker’s compensation status were excluded.Results:77% of patients were available for minimum two year followup. No patient had subsequent surgery or manipulation under anesthesis as a result of their SLAP repair. Standardized shoulder test score increased by 4 points. Mean SANE score decreased from 53 pre-op to 14 post-op. Results were the same in those over versus under 40 years of age.Conclusion:Anatomic repair of Type 2 SLAP lesions at the biceps anchor without biceps tenodesis or tenotomy can produce good results in patients of all ages.

show abstract

Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis for Treatment of Isolated Type II SLAP Lesions in a Young and Active Population

Cited by 64 publications

References 35 publications

Outcomes and Complications After Primary Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Versus Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis for Superior Labral Anterior-Posterior Tears or Biceps Abnormalities: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Outcomes and Complications After Primary Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Versus Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis for Superior Labral Anterior-Posterior Tears or Biceps Abnormalities: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Validation of a Mobile Version of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form: An Observational Randomized Crossover Trial

Treatment of Type Two Slap Lesion With Anatomic Suture Anchor Repair Without Biceps Tenotomy Or Tenodesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About