Abstract
Background
Pathology of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) is a common disorder affecting muscle function and causing considerable pain for the patient. The literature on the two surgical treatment methods (tenotomy and tenodesis) is controversial; therefore, our aim was to compare the results of these interventions.
Methods
We performed a meta-analysis using the following strategy: (P) patients with LHBT pathology, (I) tenodesis, (C) tenotomy, (O) elbow flexion and forearm supination strength, pain assessed on the ten-point Visual Analog Scale (VAS), bicipital cramping pain, Constant, ASES, and SST score, Popeye deformity, and operative time. We included only randomized clinical trials. We searched five databases. During statistical analysis, odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively, using the Bayesian method with random effect model.
Results
We included 11 studies in the systematic review, nine of these were eligible for the meta-analysis, containing data about 572 patients (279 in the tenodesis, 293 in the tenotomy group). Our analysis concluded that tenodesis is more beneficial considering 12-month elbow flexion strength (WMD: 3.67 kg; p = 0.006), 12-month forearm supination strength (WMD: 0.36 kg; p = 0.012), and 24-month Popeye deformity (OR: 0.19; p < 0.001), whereas tenotomy was associated with decreased 3-month pain scores on VAS (WMD: 0.99; p < 0.001). We did not find significant difference among the other outcomes.
Conclusion
Tenodesis yields better results in terms of biceps function and is non-inferior regarding long-term pain, while tenotomy is associated with earlier pain relief.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The biceps brachii muscle has a proven function in forearm supination and elbow flexion [1]. The separate role of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) is still debated. Cadaver studies [2–6] suggest that the LHBT plays an essential role in the stability of the glenohumeral joint, while the results of in vivo studies are controversial [7–9].
The pathology of the LHBT includes inflammation, partial or complete rupture (including SLAP lesions (superior labrum anterior and posterior)), and instability [1], which can lead to anterior shoulder pain or diminished function [10]. These lesions are often associated with other shoulder pathology, such as rotator cuff (RC) tears [11–15].
In patients undergoing RC repair, the incidence of LHBT pathology shows great heterogeneity throughout the different studies: 36.1–82% [13, 14].
Besides conservative therapy, surgery plays an important role in the treatment. The most used methods are tenotomy and tenodesis; however, there is more than one surgical approach in both groups. Tenotomy is the more straightforward method, where the tendon is released from the supraglenoid tubercle [16]. This can be performed with or without creating a funnel-shaped proximal stump [17] or releasing the LHBT with a portion of the superior labrum [18]. Tenodesis can be performed arthroscopically or through an open approach, and the tendon may be fixed to multiple anatomical locations, such as soft tissue or bone. The site can also be suprapectoral or subpectoral [19]; the fixation may involve suturing to tendons, interference screw, bone tunnels, keyholes, suture anchors, and suture buttons [10, 20, 21].
Some studies have results supporting the beneficial nature of tenodesis [22–27], while others suggest that there is no relevant difference in functional outcomes when comparing tenotomy to tenodesis [17, 28–33].
The previous meta-analyses either did not reach a firm conclusion [34] or included cohort studies [35–41].
Due to the controversial results of clinical trials and limitations of previous meta-analyses, we aimed to provide the most comprehensive analysis to date comparing tenodesis to tenotomy in managing LHBT pathologies.
Methods
We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement [42] to report our research.
Protocol
We registered our research protocol on PROSPERO in advance under the registration number CRD42021244613. There were no protocol deviations.
Search strategy, inclusion, and exclusion criteria
While stating our clinical question, we used the PICOTS framework. P (population) were the patients who have undergone LHBT operations, I (intervention) was tenotomy, our C (comparison) was tenodesis, and our outcomes were the following: pain on the ten-point Visual Analog Scale (VAS), bicipital cramping pain events, bicipital groove pain events, Constant score (range: 0–100), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score (range: 0–100), Simple Shoulder Test (SST) score (range: 0–12), operative time in minutes, elbow flexion strength, forearm supination strength, and Popeye deformity events. Regarding T (timing), we statistically analysed every outcome when at least three studies reported them at the same time point. If an outcome did not qualify for quantitative synthesis, we included it only in the systematic review section. The S (study type) was randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
On 28 November 2020, we conducted a systematic search using the databases of MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, and Scopus, using the following search key: “bicep* AND teno*”. We used the “all fields” option (or the equivalent of it) in the first four databases, while in Scopus we used the “Article title, Abstract, Keywords” search field. We applied no filters in any of the databases.
Our inclusion criteria were the following: RCTs, comparing tenotomy and tenodesis and reporting on the outcomes of interest.
Our exclusion criteria were the following: review, meta-analysis, cohort study, case report, surgical technique description, studies comparing different submodalities (for example, different tenodesis techniques), distal biceps tear, biomechanical study, cadaver study, and animal study.
Selection and data extraction
We used EndNote X9 (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA) for the selection process. After removing the duplicates, two independent review authors (M.V., S.L.) performed the selection, first by title, then abstract, and finally by full text. Following every step of the selection, Cohen’s kappa was calculated to assess the agreement between the two investigators with the following parameters: 0.00–0.20 no agreement, 0.21–0.39 minimal agreement, 0.40–0.59 weak agreement, 0.60–0.79 moderate agreement, 0.80–0.90 strong agreement, and above 0.90 almost perfect agreement [43]. We screened the references of the eligible records for possible additional articles to include in the meta-analysis. The same two review authors conducted data extraction using a pre-specified Excel sheet (Office 2016, Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA). We gathered data from the articles about the first author, year of publication, country, study design, demographic data, indication of the surgery, surgical methods, and outcomes that we presented. If the strength measurement results were reported in Newton (N), we converted them to kilogram (kg) using an online calculator (calculator-converter.com). If the studies did not report the Strength Index (SI) but did report the strength measurement result of both sides, we calculated SI from them.
Two independent review authors (M.V., L.S.) resolved the disagreements by consensus regarding both the selection and the data extraction process.
Statistical analysis
For dichotomous outcomes, odds ratios (ORs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated from the original raw data of the articles. We decided to use continuity correction [44] in case of the number of reported bicipital cramping pain events, final data outcome as we observed zero events in some studies. For continuous outcomes, weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% CI were calculated from the original raw data of the articles except in some cases where standard deviations (SDs) and means were calculated from the minimum, median, maximum, and sample size according to Wan’s method [45]. The random effect model by DerSimonian and Laird [46] was applied in all cases, with the estimate of heterogeneity. Following the Cochrane Handbook, the I2 values were considered moderate heterogeneity between 30 and 50%, substantial heterogeneity between 50 and 75%, and considerable heterogeneity higher than 75%. We used forest plots to display the results graphically. When it was statistically possible, we performed a trial sequential analysis (TSA) [47] to confirm the statistical reliability of the data with the calculation of the required information size by adjusting the significance level for sparse data.
We statistically analysed and compared every outcome when at least three studies reported them at the same time point. To provide a clear picture of the available data, we present the individual results of all included studies, comparing the two surgical methods in the systematic review section.
All data management and statistical analysis were performed with Stata (version 16.0, StataCorp) and TSA (trial sequential analysis tool from Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Denmark).
Risk of bias assessment and quality of evidence
We performed the risk of bias assessment for every examined outcome according to the Cochrane recommendation using the RoB 2: A revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials [48].
To assess the certainty of the evidence, we used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system [49] and classified our results into four levels: high, moderate, low, and very low certainty of evidence.
Two independent review authors (M.V. and L.S.) performed the risk of bias and certainty of evidence assessments. The disagreements were resolved by consensus.
Results
Search and selection
The summary of our selection process, including the Cohen’s kappa for each step, is shown in Fig. 1. We identified 5450 records in the five databases. After completing the selection process, we were left with nine eligible full-text articles in the meta-analysis [50–58] and eleven studies in the systematic review section [50–60].
Characteristics of the studies included
We summarized the basic characteristics of the included studies (shown in Table 1). All the included studies were RCTs, and ten of them compared tenotomy to tenodesis [50–55, 57–60]. We included nine studies and 572 participants in the meta-analysis, 293 in the tenotomy group and 279 in the tenodesis group. Two studies ([59, 60]) did not have outcomes with a comparable matching time point; therefore, we were only able to include these in the systematic review section.
All studies included patients with LHBT pathology; nine of the eleven studies [50–52, 54–57, 59, 60] also included patients with concomitant rotator cuff tear, while two [53, 58] excluded them.
Tenotomy was performed arthroscopically in all studies. Tenodesis was also performed arthroscopically, except in the case of 31.5% of patients (17 out of 54) in the study of MacDonald et al. [54], where surgeons used an open subpectoral approach.
The follow-up times were different in the studies, mostly between 12 and 24 months, with some variation. The evaluation times of several outcomes were also different.
Meta-analysis results
Post-operative function
The analysis of elbow flexion strength in kg at the 6-month follow-up showed no statistically significant difference [51, 53, 54] (WMD, 2.82; 95% CI, − 1.79–7.22; p = 0.237; I2 = 71.7%; low grade of evidence) (Supplementary Fig. 1). When comparing the results, the 12-month elbow flexion scores in kg showed statistically significant difference in favour of tenodesis [52–54] (WMD, 3.67; 95% CI, 1.07–6.27; p = 0.06; I2 = 36.6%; moderate grade of evidence) (Fig. 2). Analysis of the 12-month forearm supination strengths also resulted in statistically significant difference [52–54] (WMD, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.08–0.64; p = 0.012; I2 = 7.2%; low grade of evidence) (Fig. 2).
We were able to analyse the Constant score in three studies at the six month follow-up [51, 53, 55] (WMD, 0.78; 95% CI, − 2.44–4.00; p = 0.634; I2 = 27.7%; moderate grade of evidence) (Supplementary Fig. 2) and three studies at the 12-month follow-up time [52, 53, 55] (WMD, 2.26; 95% CI, − 1.12–5.65; p = 0.190; I2 = 59.1%; low grade of evidence) (Supplementary Fig. 3). Neither result showed a statistically significant difference between the two groups. The study of Lee et al. [60] also reported the six month and 12-month Constant scores, but it was not possible to analyse these outcomes due to a lack of data.
Post-operative pain
Three studies reported three month pain scores on the ten-point VAS [50, 54, 58] (WMD, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.51–1.48; p < 0.001; I2 = 0.0%; high grade of evidence) (Fig. 3). The difference was significant in favour of tenotomy, therefore, leading to the conclusion that there is earlier pain relief with tenotomy than with tenodesis. Four studies reported the 6-month [51, 54, 55, 58] (WMD, 0.05; 95% CI, − 0.21–0.30; p = 0.724; I2 = 0.0%; moderate grade of evidence) (Supplementary Fig. 4), 12-month [52, 54, 55, 58] (WMD, 0.19; 95% CI, − 0.26–0.63; p = 0.411; I2 = 80.1%; very low grade of evidence) (Supplementary Fig. 5), and 24-month [50, 51, 54, 55] (WMD, 0.01; 95% CI, − 0.04–0.07; p = 0.637; I2 = 0.0%; moderate grade of evidence) (Supplementary Fig. 6) pain scores on VAS (different studies reported it at different time points), and we found no significant difference at these time points. The study of Lee et al. [60] also reported the three month, six month, and 12-month level of pain, but it was not possible to analyse these outcomes due to lack of data.
The analysis of bicipital cramping pain events showed no significant difference at 6 months [51, 53, 56] (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.09–9.07; p = 0.943; I2 = 47.8%; moderate grade of evidence) (Supplementary Fig. 7).
Popeye deformity
Three studies [51, 54, 55] reported the occurrence of Popeye deformity at the 24-month check-up. The difference between tenotomy and tenodesis was significant in this outcome in favour of tenodesis (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.08–0.41; p < 0.001; I2 = 0.0%; moderate grade of evidence) (Fig. 4).
Operative time
When comparing the operative time (measured in minutes) of tenotomy and tenodesis, we found no statistically significant difference [54, 57, 58] (WMD, 17.15; 95% CI, − 2.05–36.35; p = 0.080; I2 = 97.5%; very low grade of evidence) (Supplementary Fig. 8).
TSA (trial sequential analysis)
The results of our TSA are depicted in Supplementary Figs. 9–16. Due to lack of data, TSA was not possible for the following outcomes: 6-six month Constant scores, six month VAS pain scores, 24-month VAS pain scores, and bicipital cramping pain events at six months post-operatively.
Systematic review results
Eight studies reported the elbow flexion strength levels [51–54, 56, 57, 59, 60], six studies reported the forearm supination strength levels [52–54, 56, 57, 60], seven studies reported the Constant score [51–53, 55, 57, 59, 60], five papers included the ASES score [50, 53, 54, 56, 60], and three studies reported the SST scores [53, 55, 59]. Nine studies reported pain levels [50–52, 54–58, 60], six studies reported the number of bicipital cramping pain events [51–53, 55–57], and three studies reported the number of bicipital groove pain events [50, 52, 56]. All studies reported the Popeye deformity outcome [50–60]. The article of Lee et al. [60] reported the 3-month, 6-month, 12-month, and final data of the Constant score, ASES score, and level of pain, but it was not possible to analyse these outcomes due to lack of data.
The summary of calculated odds ratios and weighted mean differences for the outcomes that were not eligible for the meta-analysis are shown in Table 2.
Risk of bias assessment and quality of evidence
A summary of the risk of bias assessment is shown in Supplementary Figs. 17–38. The Popeye deformity was the only outcome that all studies reported. In this analysis we found four studies with high risk of bias [55, 58–60], six studies carried “some concerns” [50–53, 56, 57], while one study resulted in low risk of bias [54]. Lower grades were mostly due to the unclear randomization process, the lack of blinding, and the missing trial protocols.
The results of the GRADE analysis are shown for every outcome in the results section. A detailed description of the quality of evidence is found in Supplementary Table 1.
Discussion
The earlier meta-analyses also included non-randomized trials [35–41] with the exception of Ahmed et al. [34]; hence, their results must be regarded with caution.
Biceps brachii has an essential role in elbow flexion strength. For this reason, we decided to choose this as one of the primary outcome parameters. Even though our analysis did not significantly differ at the 6-month follow-up, at 12 months, the elbow flexion strength was significantly better in the tenodesis group. To our knowledge, this result is a novelty compared to the results of previous meta-analyses that examined this particular outcome [34, 37–40]. Nevertheless, our TSA indicates that further RCTs are needed in the case of the six month results. Even though the required sample size was reached for the 12-month results, potential spurious significance was present; thus, this should be considered inconclusive according to the TSA result. If we consider the results of the individual studies included in the systematic review, we are left with mixed results, but due to the differences in time points, we could not perform more statistical comparisons.
Another major role of the biceps brachii is forearm supination. Our results showed a statistically significant difference between the 12-month supination strength results in favour of tenodesis, contradicting the literature so far [34, 37–40]. According to our trial sequential analysis, further clinical trials are needed to reach a more certain result. Examining the final data from the individual studies, we discovered a tendency in favour of tenodesis.
The Constant score is a widely accepted scoring system used to evaluate post-operative function after shoulder operations. However, it is not specific to biceps function but was designed to assess the overall functional state of the shoulder [62]. Although we found no significant difference between the Constant scores (6 months, 12 months post-operatively), if we add the systematic review results, there is a trend suggesting that tenodesis might lead to better post-operative scores than tenotomy. This result is in accordance with the previous meta-analyses, where they either found statistically significant difference without reaching the minimal clinically important difference [63] (MCID) [34–36, 38–41] or did not find any significant differences when comparing the two methods [37].
From the patient’s perspective, post-operative pain might be the strongest quality measure after surgery. We could analyse the degree of pain as the VAS indicated at three, six, 12, and 24 months after surgery. The difference was significant only at the three month follow-up in favour of tenotomy. The TSA for this outcome showed that no further studies are needed to confirm the result. Thus we can conclude that patients experience less pain three months after tenotomy than those who underwent tenodesis. Despite this, we found no significant differences between the two methods in the long term. Out of the meta-analyses that examined pain on VAS [34, 38–40], only Ahmed et al. [34] evaluated more time points (6, 12, 24 months), but they did not find significant differences between tenotomy and tenodesis. The systematic review results did not suggest any strong tendency toward the preference of tenotomy or tenodesis.
According to some previous articles, one of the drawbacks of tenotomy is that it leads to a higher incidence of cramping pain events [35, 37]. The results of our analysis at the six month follow-up do not support this assumption and are in accord with those analyses which found no difference between tenotomy and tenodesis [34, 36, 38–41]. The results remained the same after we evaluated the data of the systematic review.
In a recent study on 1723 patients, tenotomy was associated with a higher incidence of Popeye deformity than tenodesis [23]. Our results confirmed this data: we also found a significant difference between the two groups in favour of tenodesis, in accordance with earlier meta-analyses [34–41]. The TSA showed that no further clinical trials are needed to confirm this result.
Surgical times can vary greatly for various reasons, including concomitant procedures such as rotator cuff repair and the surgical team’s experience. According to a recent systematic review and meta-analysis, shorter operative time is one of the advantages of tenotomy [35]. Surprisingly, even though all of the included RCTs that examined this outcome [54, 57, 58] found that tenodesis requires more time to perform, the result of our analysis showed no statistically significant difference between tenotomy and tenodesis in this regard. Considering the results established in the literature and the conflicting result of our TSA, no conclusion can be drawn on this topic at present.
Strengths and limitations
This meta-analysis from nine studies has considerable strengths. Unlike previous analyses, a strict methodology was applied with outcomes assessed only at the same time points. Since we only included randomized controlled trials, this analysis portrays the highest level of achievable evidence on this topic. Trial sequential analyses were performed to assess whether further clinical trials are needed. It was deemed conclusive regarding three month pain levels on the VAS and Popeye deformity at the 24-month follow-up outcomes.
Our meta-analysis had some limitations, including the small sample size that influenced some of the TSA results. In addition, the indication for treatment differed among the included trials, and there was heterogeneity among the studies regarding intervention submodalities and rehabilitation protocols. In some cases, standard deviations (SDs) and means were calculated from the minimum, median, maximum, and sample size. TSA was not conclusive in the following outcomes: six month elbow flexion strength in kg, 12-month elbow flexion strength in kg, 12-month forearm supination strength in kg, 12-month Constant score, 12-month pain levels on the Visual Analog Scale, and operative time in minutes.
We suggest conducting further randomized controlled trials focusing on elbow flexion strength, forearm supination strength, pain, and operative time, as these were deemed inconclusive based on our TSA. When designing an RCT, exact time points regarding the assessment of outcomes are required. The importance of biceps function-specific outcomes such as flexion and supination strength should be highlighted and should be focused on by further RCTs. The use of LHB score [61] might be beneficial in studies focusing on LHBT treatment methods, since it is specific to biceps, unlike the score systems most studies use (Constant, ASES, SST, UCLA (University of California at Los Angeles), etc.). Creating and reporting subgroups would be beneficial (i.e., a group with concomitant rotator cuff surgery and a group without it or comparing different tenotomy methods with the potential for autotenodesis).
Conclusions
Based on our results, tenodesis should be preferred over tenotomy due to a less frequent occurrence of Popeye deformity, better postoperative biceps function, and the non-inferior nature of tenodesis regarding long-term pain.
Availability of data and material
Data and material is available from the first author. Email: v.matyasvajda@gmail.com.
References
Mehl J (2018) Proximal biceps long head: anatomy, biomechanics, pathology. Oper Tech Sports Med 26:76–81. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.otsm.2018.02.002
McMahon PJ, Burkart A, Musahl V, Debski RE (2004) Glenohumeral translations are increased after a type II superior labrum anterior-posterior lesion: a cadaveric study of severity of passive stabilizer injury. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 13:39–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2003.09.004
Itoi E, Kuechle DK, Newman SR, Morrey BF, An KN (1993) Stabilising function of the biceps in stable and unstable shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75:546–550. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.75b4.8331107
Pagnani MJ, Deng X-H, Warren RF, Torzilli PA, O’Brien SJ (1996) Role of the long head of the biceps brachii in glenohumeral stability: a biomechanical study in cadavera. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 5:255–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1058-2746(96)80051-6
Rodosky MW, Harner CD, Fu FH (1994) The role of the long head of the biceps muscle and superior glenoid labrum in anterior stability of the shoulder. Am J Sports Med 22:121–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/036354659402200119
Youm T, ElAttrache NS, Tibone JE, McGarry MH, Lee TQ (2009) The effect of the long head of the biceps on glenohumeral kinematics. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 18:122–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2008.06.003
Levy AS, Kelly BT, Lintner SA, Osbahr DC, Speer KP (2001) Function of the long head of the biceps at the shoulder: electromyographic analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 10:250–255. https://doi.org/10.1067/mse.2001.113087
Hawkes DH, Alizadehkhaiyat O, Fisher AC, Kemp GJ, Roebuck MM, Frostick SP (2012) Normal shoulder muscular activation and co-ordination during a shoulder elevation task based on activities of daily living: an electromyographic study. J Orthop Res 30:53–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.21482
Giphart JE, Elser F, Dewing CB, Torry MR, Millett PJ (2012) The long head of the biceps tendon has minimal effect on in vivo glenohumeral kinematics: a biplane fluoroscopy study. Am J Sports Med 40:202–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546511423629
Elser F, Braun S, Dewing CB, Giphart JE, Millett PJ (2011) Anatomy, function, injuries, and treatment of the long head of the biceps brachii tendon. Arthroscopy 27:581–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2010.10.014
Sakurai G, Ozaki J, Tomita Y, Nakagawa Y, Kondo T, Tamai S (1998) Morphologic changes in long head of biceps brachii in rotator cuff dysfunction. J Orthop Sci 3:137–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s007760050033
Beall DP, Williamson EE, Ly JQ, Adkins MC, Emery RL, Jones TP, Rowland CM (2003) Association of biceps tendon tears with rotator cuff abnormalities: degree of correlation with tears of the anterior and superior portions of the rotator cuff. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:633–639. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.180.3.1800633
Desai SS, Mata HK (2017) Long head of biceps tendon pathology and results of tenotomy in full-thickness reparable rotator cuff tear. Arthroscopy 33:1971–1976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2017.06.018
Chen CH, Chen CH, Chang CH, Su CI, Wang KC, Wang IC, Liu HT, Yu CM, Hsu KY (2012) Classification and analysis of pathology of the long head of the biceps tendon in complete rotator cuff tears. Chang Gung Med J 35:263–270. https://doi.org/10.4103/2319-4170.106145
Murthi AM, Vosburgh CL, Neviaser TJ (2000) The incidence of pathologic changes of the long head of the biceps tendon. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 9:382–385. https://doi.org/10.1067/mse.2000.108386
Angelo RL (2018) Surgical management of proximal long head biceps tendon disorders. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 26:176–180. https://doi.org/10.1097/jsa.0000000000000197
Cho NS, Cha SW, Rhee YG (2014) Funnel tenotomy versus intracuff tenodesis for lesions of the long head of the biceps tendon associated with rotator cuff tears. Am J Sports Med 42:1161–1168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546514523719
Bradbury T, Dunn WR, Kuhn JE (2008) Preventing the Popeye deformity after release of the long head of the biceps tendon: an alternative technique and biomechanical evaluation. Arthroscopy J Arthrosc Relat Surg 24:1099–1102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2008.06.002
Nho SJ, Strauss EJ, Lenart BA, Provencher MT, Mazzocca AD, Verma NN, Romeo AA (2010) Long head of the biceps tendinopathy: diagnosis and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 18:645–656. https://doi.org/10.5435/00124635-201011000-00002
van Deurzen DFP, Gurnani N, Alta TDW, Willems JH, Onstenk R, van den Bekerom MPJ (2020) Suprapectoral versus subpectoral tenodesis for long head biceps brachii tendinopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 106:693–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2020.01.004
McDonald LS, Dewing CB, Shupe PG, Provencher MT (2013) Disorders of the proximal and distal aspects of the biceps muscle. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95:1235–1245. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.L.00221
Meraner D, Sternberg C, Vega J, Hahne J, Kleine M, Leuzinger J (2016) Arthroscopic tenodesis versus tenotomy of the long head of biceps tendon in simultaneous rotator cuff repair. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136:101–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2343-2
McCrum CL, Alluri RK, Batech M, Acevedo D, Mirzayan R (2017) Analysis of 1723 proximal long head of the biceps tendon procedures. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg 33:e47
Tokish JM, Tolan SJ, Lee J, Shelley C, Swinehart SD, Lonergan KT, Kissenberth MJ, Hawkins RJ, Thigpen CA (2017) Treatment of biceps lesions in the setting of the rotator cuff repair: when is tenodesis superior to tenotomy? Orthop J Sports Med 5. https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967117S00399
Ikemoto RY, Pileggi PE, Murachovsky J, Nascimento LG, Serpone RB, Strose E, Oliveira LH (2012) Tenotomy with or without tenodesis of the long head of the biceps using repair of the rotator cuff. Rev Bras Ortop 47:736–740. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2255-4971(15)30031-8
Gervasi E, Sebastiani E, Cautero E (2016) No-holes transpectoral tenodesis technique vs tenotomy of the long head of the biceps brachii. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J 6:427–432. https://doi.org/10.11138/mltj/2016.6.4.427
Godenèche A, Kempf JF, Nové-Josserand L, Michelet A, Saffarini M, Hannink G, Collin P (2018) Tenodesis renders better results than tenotomy in repairs of isolated supraspinatus tears with pathologic biceps. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 27:1939–1945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2018.03.030
Clement X, Baldairon F, Clavert P, Kempf JF (2018) Popeye sign: Tenodesis vs. self-locking “T” tenotomy of the long head of the biceps. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 104:23–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2017.09.016
Delle Rose G, Borroni M, Silvestro A, Garofalo R, Conti M, De Nittis P, Castagna A (2012) The long head of biceps as a source of pain in active population: tenotomy or tenodesis? A comparison of 2 case series with isolated lesions. Musculoskelet Surg 96(Suppl 1):S47-52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-012-0189-0
Fang JH, Dai XS, Yu XN, Luo JY, Liu XN, Zhang MF, Zhu SN (2019) Lesions of the long head of the biceps tendon concomitant with rotator cuff tears: tenotomy or subpectoral mini-open tenodesis? A comparative short to mid-term follow-up study. Orthop Surg 11:857–863. https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12536
Shank JR, Singleton SB, Braun S, Kissenberth MJ, Ramappa A, Ellis H, Decker MJ, Hawkins RJ, Torry MR (2011) A comparison of forearm supination and elbow flexion strength in patients with long head of the biceps tenotomy or tenodesis. Arthroscopy 27:9–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2010.06.022
Sentürk I, Ozalay M, Akpınar S, Leblebici B, Cınar BM, Tuncay C (2011) Clinical and isokinetic comparison between tenotomy and tenodesis in biceps pathologies. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 45:41–46. https://doi.org/10.3944/aott.2011.2308
Koh KH, Ahn JH, Kim SM, Yoo JC (2010) Treatment of biceps tendon lesions in the setting of rotator cuff tears: prospective cohort study of tenotomy versus tenodesis. Am J Sports Med 38:1584–1590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546510364053
Ahmed AF, Toubasi A, Mahmoud S, Ahmed GO, Al Ateeq Al Dosari M, Zikria BA (2020) Long head of biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Shoulder Elbow. https://doi.org/10.1177/1758573220942923
Ge H, Zhang Q, Sun Y, Li J, Sun L, Cheng B (2015) Tenotomy or tenodesis for the long head of biceps lesions in shoulders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 10:e0121286. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121286
Leroux T, Chahal J, Wasserstein D, Verma NN, Romeo AA (2015) A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes after concurrent rotator cuff repair and long head biceps tenodesis or tenotomy. Sports health 7:303–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/1941738114539627
Gurnani N, van Deurzen DF, Janmaat VT, van den Bekerom MP (2016) Tenotomy or tenodesis for pathology of the long head of the biceps brachii: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:3765–3771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3640-6
Shang X, Chen J, Chen S (2017) A meta-analysis comparing tenotomy and tenodesis for treating rotator cuff tears combined with long head of the biceps tendon lesions. PLoS ONE 12:e0185788. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185788
Yi G, Yang J, Zhang L, Zhou X, Liu G, Guo XG, Liu Y, Qin B (2018) Curative efficacy of tenotomy versus tenodesis for long head of the biceps tendon lesions combined with rotator cuff repair: a meta-analysis. Chin J Tissue Eng Res 22:3921–3929. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.0327
Na Y, Zhu Y, Shi Y, Ren Y, Zhang T, Liu W, Han C (2019) A meta-analysis comparing tenotomy or tenodesis for lesions of the long head of the biceps tendon with concomitant reparable rotator cuff tears. J Orthop Surg Res 14:370. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-019-1429-x
Anil U, Hurley ET, Kingery MT, Pauzenberger L, Mullett H, Strauss EJ (2020) Surgical treatment for long head of the biceps tendinopathy: a network meta-analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 29:1289–1295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2019.10.021
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, Moher D (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
McHugh ML (2012) Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica 22:276–282
Sankey SS, Weissfeld LA, Fine MJ, Kapoor W (1996) An assessment of the use of the continuity correction for sparse data in meta-analysis. Commun Stat Simul Comput 25:1031–1056. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610919608813357
Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T (2014) Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol 14:135. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-135
DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7:177–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2
Gordon Lan KK, Demets DL (1983) Discrete sequential boundaries for clinical trials. Biometrika 70:659–663. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.3.659%JBiometrika5
Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, Cates CJ, Cheng HY, Corbett MS, Eldridge SM, Emberson JR, Hernán MA, Hopewell S, Hróbjartsson A, Junqueira DR, Jüni P, Kirkham JJ, Lasserson T, Li T, McAleenan A, Reeves BC, Shepperd S, Shrier I, Stewart LA, Tilling K, White IR, Whiting PF, Higgins JPT (2019) RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 366:l4898. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 336:924–926. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD
Belay ES, Wittstein JR, Garrigues GE, Lassiter TE, Scribani M, Goldner RD, Bean CA (2019) Biceps tenotomy has earlier pain relief compared to biceps tenodesis: a randomized prospective study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27:4032–4037. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05682-1
Castricini R, Familiari F, De Gori M, Riccelli DA, De Benedetto M, Orlando N, Galasso O, Gasparini G (2018) Tenodesis is not superior to tenotomy in the treatment of the long head of biceps tendon lesions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26:169–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4609-4
García-Rellan JE, Sánchez-Alepuz E, Mudarra-García J, Silvestre A (2020) Study of the biceps fatigue after surgery on the long head of biceps tendon in male heavy workers. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing biomechanics and clinical outcomes after tenotomy versus tenodesis. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J 10:522–530. https://doi.org/10.32098/mltj.03.2020.25
Hufeland M, Wicke S, Verde PE, Krauspe R, Patzer T (2019) Biceps tenodesis versus tenotomy in isolated LHB lesions: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 139:961–970. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-019-03136-4
MacDonald P, Verhulst F, McRae S, Old J, Stranges G, Dubberley J, Mascarenhas R, Koenig J, Leiter J, Nassar M, Lapner P (2020) Biceps tenodesis versus tenotomy in the treatment of lesions of the long head of the biceps tendon in patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery: a prospective double-blinded randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med 48:1439–1449. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546520912212
Mardani-Kivi M, KarimiMobarakeh M, Keyhani S, Ebrahim-Zadeh MH, HaghparastGhadim-Limudahi Z (2018) Treatment of long head of biceps tendon lesions together with rotator cuff tears: which method is preferred? Tenotomy or Tenodesis. Tech Shoulder Elbow Surg 19:101–105. https://doi.org/10.1097/BTE.0000000000000142
Oh JH, Lee YH, Kim SH, Park JS, Seo HJ, Kim W, Park HB (2016) Comparison of treatments for superior labrum-biceps complex lesions with concomitant rotator cuff repair: a prospective, randomized, comparative analysis of debridement, biceps tenotomy, and biceps tenodesis. Arthroscopy 32:958–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2015.11.036
Zhang Q, Zhou J, Ge H, Cheng B (2015) Tenotomy or tenodesis for long head biceps lesions in shoulders with reparable rotator cuff tears: a prospective randomised trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:464–469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2587-8
Zhang B, Yuan Y, Zhang HJ, Luo H, Yang C (2019) Comparison of two different arthroscopic techniques for long head of biceps tendinitis. Zhongguo gu shang = China J Orthop Traumatol 32:701–706. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003-0034.2019.08.005
De Carli A, Vadalà A, Zanzotto E, Zampar G, Vetrano M, Iorio R, Ferretti A (2012) Reparable rotator cuff tears with concomitant long-head biceps lesions: tenotomy or tenotomy/tenodesis? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:2553–2558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-1918-5
Lee HJ, Jeong JY, Kim CK, Kim YS (2016) Surgical treatment of lesions of the long head of the biceps brachii tendon with rotator cuff tear: a prospective randomized clinical trial comparing the clinical results of tenotomy and tenodesis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 25:1107–1114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2016.02.006
Scheibel M, Schröder RJ, Chen J, Bartsch M (2011) Arthroscopic soft tissue tenodesis versus bony fixation anchor tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon. Am J Sports Med 39:1046–1052. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546510390777
Constant CR, Gerber C, Emery RJ, Søjbjerg JO, Gohlke F, Boileau P (2008) A review of the Constant score: modifications and guidelines for its use. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 17:355–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2007.06.022
Kukkonen J, Kauko T, Vahlberg T, Joukainen A, Aärimaa V (2013) Investigating minimal clinically important difference for Constant score in patients undergoing rotator cuff surgery. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 22:1650–1655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2013.05.002
Funding
Open access funding provided by University of Pécs. Funding was provided by an Economic Development and Innovation Operative Programme Grant (GINOP-2.3.4–15-2020–00010) and by a Human Resources Development Operational Programme Grant (EFOP-3.6.2–16-2017–00006, EFOP-3.6.1–16-2016–00004), both co-financed by the European Union (European Regional Development Fund) within the framework of the Széchenyi 2020 Program.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Mátyás Vajda, Lajos Szakó, and Károly Schandl conceptualized the study; Mátyás Vajda and Lajos Szakó performed the selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment; Anikó Görbe performed the statistical analysis; Mátyás Vajda, Lajos Szakó, Péter Hegyi, Bálint Erőss, Zsolt Molnár, László Bucsi, and Károly Schandl drafted the manuscript; Kincső Kozma and Gergő Józsa provided critical appraisal of the manuscript, while László Bucsi and Károly Schandl contributed equally as last authors.
All authors reviewed and agreed on the final version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Ethical Committee approval
Not applicable
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Key points summary
Question: Our main objective was to compare the results of tenotomy and tenodesis in long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) operations.
Findings: We found that tenodesis lead to better postoperative biceps function and a less frequent occurrence of Popeye deformity. Although tenotomy leads to earlier pain relief, there was no significant difference between the groups regarding long-term pain.
Meaning: Our data suggest that tenodesis should be preferred over tenotomy, whenever it is possible.
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Level of evidence: II
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
264_2022_5338_MOESM2_ESM.png
Supplementary Fig. 1 A Forest plot that compares the results of elbow flexion strengthmeasurements in kilogram (kg) in tenotomy and tenodesis 6 months postoperatively. The blackdiamonds represent the effect of individual studies, and the vertical lines show the corresponding95% confidence intervals (CI). The size of the grey squares reflects the weight of a particularstudy. The blue diamond reflects the overall or summary effect. The outer edges of the diamondsrepresent the CIs (PNG 100 KB)
264_2022_5338_MOESM3_ESM.png
Supplementary Fig. 2 A Forest plot that compares the 6-month Constant scores of tenotomyand tenodesis. The black diamonds represent the effect of individual studies, and the vertical linesshow the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). The size of the grey squares reflects theweight of a particular study. The blue diamond reflects the overall or summary effect. The outeredges of the diamonds represent the CIs (PNG 94 KB)
264_2022_5338_MOESM4_ESM.png
Supplementary Fig. 3 A Forest plot that compares the 12-month Constant scores oftenotomy and tenodesis. The black diamonds represent the effect of individual studies, and thevertical lines show the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). The size of the grey squaresreflects the weight of a particular study. The blue diamond reflects the overall or summary effect.The outer edges of the diamonds represent the CIs (PNG 92 KB)
264_2022_5338_MOESM5_ESM.png
Supplementary Fig. 4 A Forest plot that compares the level of pain on the Visual AnalogScale (VAS) of tenotomy and tenodesis at the 6-month follow-up. The black diamonds representthe effect of individual studies, and the vertical lines show the corresponding 95% confidenceintervals (CI). The size of the grey squares reflects the weight of a particular study. The bluediamond reflects the overall or summary effect. The outer edges of the diamonds represent theCIs (PNG 87 KB)
264_2022_5338_MOESM6_ESM.png
Supplementary Fig. 5 A Forest plot that compares the level of pain on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) of tenotomy and tenodesis at the 12-month follow-up. The black diamonds represent the effect of individual studies, and the vertical lines show the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). The size of the grey squares reflects the weight of a particular study. The blue diamond reflects the overall or summary effect. The outer edges of the diamonds represent theCIs (PNG 106 KB)
264_2022_5338_MOESM7_ESM.png
Supplementary Fig. 6 A Forest plot that compares the level of pain on the Visual AnalogScale (VAS) of tenotomy and tenodesis at the 24-month follow-up. The black diamonds representthe effect of individual studies, and the vertical lines show the corresponding 95% confidenceintervals (CI). The size of the grey squares reflects the weight of a particular study. The blue diamond reflects the overall or summary effect. The outer edges of the diamonds represent theCIs (PNG 105 KB)
264_2022_5338_MOESM8_ESM.png
Supplementary Fig. 7 A Forest plot that compares the number of bicipital cramping pain events of tenotomy and tenodesis, 6 months postoperatively. The black diamonds represent the effect of individual studies, and the vertical lines show the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). The size of the grey squares reflects the weight of a particular study. The blue diamond reflects the overall or summary effect. The outer edges of the diamonds represent theCIs (PNG 108 KB)
264_2022_5338_MOESM9_ESM.png
Supplementary Fig. 8 A Forest plot that compares the operative time of tenotomy and tenodesis. The black diamonds represent the effect of individual studies, and the vertical lines show the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). The size of the grey squares reflects the weight of a particular study. The blue diamond reflects the overall or summary effect. The outer edges of the diamonds represent the CIs (PNG 87 KB)
264_2022_5338_MOESM10_ESM.png
Supplementary Fig. 9 Trial sequential analysis (TSA) analysis for the 6-month elbowflexion strength in kg. The Z curve represents the studies of the meta-analysis in chronologicalorder. As the Z curve did not cross any boundaries, including the Alpha line, this outcome of themeta-analysis is inconclusive. More clinical trials are needed (PNG 75 KB)
264_2022_5338_MOESM11_ESM.png
Supplementary Fig. 10 Trial sequential analysis (TSA) analysis for the 12-month elbow flexion strength in kg. The Z curve represents the studies of the meta-analysis in chronological order. After the first study, the Z curve crossed the Conventional boundary, therefore the analysis was significant. However, the Z curve did not cross the Trial Sequential boundary, the analysis is therefore potentially spurious. The Z curve reached and crossed the Alpha line, thus the sample size exceeded the required meta-analysis sample size. This meta-analysis was inconclusive as there was potential spurious significance (p < 0.05). Since the required sample size was reached, further clinical trials are not required. Considering the raw data and comparing the TSA results to the forest plot, it is possible that some type of bias may influence these results (PNG 89 KB)
264_2022_5338_MOESM12_ESM.png
Supplementary Fig. 11 Trial sequential analysis (TSA) analysis for the 12-month forearmsupination strength in kg. The Z curve represents the studies of the meta-analysis in chronologicalorder. After the first study, the Z curve crossed the Conventional boundary. After the third study,the Z curve crossed the Trial Sequential boundary too, depicting that the analysis was trulysignificant from that point. The sample size did not exceed the required meta-analysis sample size(Alpha). This meta-analysis was inconclusive. More clinical trials are needed to confirm thesignificance (PNG 111 KB)
264_2022_5338_MOESM13_ESM.png
Supplementary Fig. 12 Trial sequential analysis (TSA) analysis for the 12-month Constant score. The Z curve represents the studies of the meta-analysis in chronological order. As the Z curve did not cross any boundaries, including the Alpha line, this outcome of the meta-analysis is inconclusive. More clinical trials are needed (PNG 85 KB)
264_2022_5338_MOESM14_ESM.png
Supplementary Fig. 13 Trial sequential analysis (TSA) analysis for the 3-month pain levels on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) outcome. The Z curve represents the studies of the meta-analysis in chronological order. After the first study, the Z curve crossed the Conventional boundary. Therefore the analysis was significant. After the second study, the Z curve crossed the Trial sequential boundary showing real significance. The Z curve also reached and crossed theline of the Alpha after the second study. This means that the required sample size was reached after the second study. The tenotomy method was superior to the tenodesis method. Further clinical trials are not required (PNG 88 KB)
264_2022_5338_MOESM15_ESM.png
Supplementary Fig. 14 Trial sequential analysis (TSA) analysis for the 12-month pain levels on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) outcome. The Z curve represents the studies of the meta-analysis in chronological order. As the Z curve did not cross any boundaries, including the Alpha line, the outcome of the meta-analysis is inconclusive. More clinical trials are needed (PNG 71 KB)
264_2022_5338_MOESM16_ESM.png
Supplementary Fig. 15 Trial sequential analysis (TSA) analysis for the occurrence of Popeye deformity at the 24-month follow-up. The Z curve represents the studies of the meta-analysis in chronological order. After the first study, the Z curve crossed the Conventional boundary, the Trial Sequential boundary, and the Alpha line. Therefore the analysis was truly significant from that point and reached the required sample size. The tenodesis method was superior to the tenotomy treatment. Further clinical trials are not required (PNG 83 KB)
264_2022_5338_MOESM17_ESM.png
Supplementary Fig. 16 Trial sequential analysis (TSA) analysis for the operative time in minutes. The Z curve represents the studies of the meta-analysis in chronological order. After the first study, the Z curve crossed the Conventional boundary as well as the Trial Sequential boundary. Therefore the analysis was potentially significant. However, after the second study, the Z curve crossed the Alpha line as well as the Futility boundary. This means that the sample size exceeded the required meta-analysis sample size (when the Z curve crossed the Alpha line). However, it also means that the significance of the meta-analysis was more spurious than reliable, as the Z curve crossed the Futility boundary. Therefore, this outcome of the meta-analysis was inconclusive since there was potential spurious significance (p < 0.05). As the required sample size was reached, further clinical trials are not required. Considering the raw data and comparing the TSA results to the forest plot, it is possible that some form of bias may have caused these results (PNG 89 KB)
264_2022_5338_MOESM18_ESM.png
Supplementary Fig. 17 Risk of bias assessment of the 6-month elbow flexion strengthoutcome, measured in kilogram (kg) (PNG 173 KB)
264_2022_5338_MOESM19_ESM.png
Supplementary Fig. 18 Risk of bias assessment of the 12-month elbow flexion strength outcome, measured in kilogram (kg) (PNG 177 KB)
264_2022_5338_MOESM20_ESM.png
Supplementary Fig. 19 Risk of bias assessment of the final elbow flexion strength outcome,measured in kilogram (kg) (PNG 190 KB)
264_2022_5338_MOESM21_ESM.png
Supplementary Fig. 20 Risk of bias assessment of the final elbow flexion strength outcome, measured in Strength Index (SI) (PNG 176 KB)
264_2022_5338_MOESM22_ESM.png
Supplementary Fig. 21 Risk of bias assessment of the 12-month forearm supination strength outcome, measured in kilogram (kg) (PNG 176 KB)
264_2022_5338_MOESM23_ESM.png
Supplementary Fig. 22 Risk of bias assessment of the final forearm supination strength outcome, measured in Strength Index (SI) (PNG 179 KB)
264_2022_5338_MOESM27_ESM.png
Supplementary Fig. 26 Risk of bias assessment of the final American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score outcome (PNG 160 KB)
264_2022_5338_MOESM29_ESM.png
Supplementary Fig. 28 Risk of bias assessment of the 3-month pain levels on the Visual Analog scale (VAS) outcome (PNG 168 KB)
264_2022_5338_MOESM30_ESM.png
Supplementary Fig. 29 Risk of bias assessment of the 6-month pain levels on the Visual Analog scale (VAS) outcome (PNG 180 KB)
264_2022_5338_MOESM31_ESM.png
Supplementary Fig. 30 Risk of bias assessment of the 12-month pain levels on the Visual Analog scale (VAS) outcome (PNG 179 KB)
264_2022_5338_MOESM32_ESM.png
Supplementary Fig. 31 Risk of bias assessment of the 24-month pain levels on the Visual Analog scale (VAS) outcome (PNG 180 KB)
264_2022_5338_MOESM33_ESM.png
Supplementary Fig. 32 Risk of bias assessment of the final pain levels on the Visual Analog scale (VAS) outcome (PNG 193 KB)
264_2022_5338_MOESM34_ESM.png
Supplementary Fig. 33 Risk of bias assessment of the number of bicipital cramping pain events at 6 months outcome (PNG 163 KB)
264_2022_5338_MOESM35_ESM.png
Supplementary Fig. 34 Risk of bias assessment of the number of bicipital cramping pain events at the final evaluation outcome (PNG 195 KB)
264_2022_5338_MOESM36_ESM.png
Supplementary Fig. 35 Risk of bias assessment of the number of bicipital groove pain events at the final evaluation outcome (PNG 168 KB)
264_2022_5338_MOESM37_ESM.png
Supplementary Fig. 36 Risk of bias assessment of the number of Popeye deformity events at 24 months outcome (PNG 190 KB)
264_2022_5338_MOESM38_ESM.png
Supplementary Fig. 37 Risk of bias assessment of the number of Popeye deformity events at the final evaluation outcome (PNG 207 KB)
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Vajda, M., Szakó, L., Hegyi, P. et al. Tenodesis yields better functional results than tenotomy in long head of the biceps tendon operations—a systematic review and meta-analysis. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 46, 1037–1051 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-022-05338-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-022-05338-9