Open Versus Arthroscopic Biceps Tenodesis: A Comparison of Functional Outcomes

Kyle R Duchman; David E DeMik; Bastian Uribe; Brian R Wolf; Matthew Bollier

Back

Open Versus Arthroscopic Biceps Tenodesis: A Comparison of Functional Outcomes

Journal article

Open access

Peer reviewed

Open Versus Arthroscopic Biceps Tenodesis: A Comparison of Functional Outcomes

Kyle R Duchman, David E DeMik, Bastian Uribe, Brian R Wolf and Matthew Bollier

The Iowa orthopaedic journal, Vol.36, pp.79-87

2016

PMCID: PMC4910781

PMID: 27528841

Appears in Diamond Open Access

Files and links (1)

url

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4910781/View

Published (Version of record) Open Access

Abstract

The proximal aspect of the long head of the biceps brachii (LHB) is a frequent source of anterior shoulder pain. Multiple techniques for LHB tenodesis have been described. However, comparative outcomes are lacking. The present study aims to compare functional results, patient reported outcomes, complications, and clinical failures for patients undergoing open versus arthroscopic LHB tenodesis. All patients who underwent open or arthroscopic LHB tenodesis from 2009-2012 at a single institution were identified. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and operative variables of interest, including concomitant procedures, were recorded. Minimum 1-year follow-up was required for inclusion. Outcomes, including patient reported outcomes, physical exam findings, and complications were compared between open and arthroscopic LHB tenodesis patients. Overall, 45 patients (25 open, 20 arthroscopic) were available for analysis. In total, there was a single clinical failure in a patient who underwent arthroscopic LHB tenodesis. No other complications or failures were noted. Active shoulder forward elevation was increased in the open tenodesis group as compared to the arthroscopic tenodesis group (177.8 ± 9.3° vs. 171.3 ± 11.7°; p = 0.049). Otherwise, there was no difference in range of motion or strength. For both groups, both the SF-36 and ASES scores improved significantly from preoperative values. Both open and arthroscopic LHB tenodesis provide good to excellent outcomes with few complications. Given the recent increased utilization of LHB tenodesis, future studies should use randomization and prospective data collection in order to determine if discrete patient populations are better served by either open or arthroscopic LHB tenodesis techniques.

Postoperative Complications - etiology

Tenodesis - adverse effects

Tenodesis - methods

Bone Screws

Humans

Middle Aged

Male

Shoulder Pain - surgery

Treatment Outcome

Arthroscopy - methods

Range of Motion, Articular - physiology

Adult

Female

Arthroscopy - adverse effects

Muscle Strength - physiology

Shoulder Pain - physiopathology

Details

Title: Subtitle: Open Versus Arthroscopic Biceps Tenodesis: A Comparison of Functional Outcomes
Creators: Kyle R Duchman - Department of Orthopedics & Rehabilitation University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics Iowa City, IA, USA
David E DeMik - Department of Orthopedics & Rehabilitation University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics Iowa City, IA, USA
Bastian Uribe - Department of Orthopedics & Rehabilitation University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics Iowa City, IA, USA
Brian R Wolf - Department of Orthopedics & Rehabilitation University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics Iowa City, IA, USA
Matthew Bollier - Department of Orthopedics & Rehabilitation University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics Iowa City, IA, USA
Resource Type: Journal article
Publication Details: The Iowa orthopaedic journal, Vol.36, pp.79-87
Publisher: Dept. of Orthopaedics, The University of Iowa; United States
PMID: 27528841
PMCID: PMC4910781
ISSN: 1541-5457
eISSN: 1555-1377
Language: English
Date published: 2016
Academic Unit: Orthopedics and Rehabilitation; Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science
Record Identifier: 9984040584702771

Metrics

25 Record Views