Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is biceps tenodesis necessary when performing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in patients older than 55 years?

  • Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

In patients with arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, tenotomy and tenodesis are the most performed surgical procedures for the biceps long head (BLH) pathologies. Controversy continues as to which surgical procedure provides better results. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of tenotomy and tenodesis applied to the biceps long head in patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

Materials and methods

In our study, the clinical results of 706 patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with tenotomy or tenodesis on the long biceps head were evaluated retrospectively. Rotator cuff repair patients were divided into two groups as single-row and double-row repair patients. The clinical results of patients who underwent tenotomy and tenodesis in single-row (n = 383) and double-row (n = 323) repair groups were compared. The clinical outcomes of the patients who underwent tenotomy and tenodesis without distinction between double/single-row repair were also compared. Preoperative and postoperative clinical evaluations of the patients were made with Constant Shoulder Score (CSS) and visual pain scale (VAS). The presence of the Popeye sign in the arm, tenderness in the bicipital groove, and cramping in the biceps muscle in the postoperative period was evaluated and compared among groups. Preoperative and postoperative clinical results of the patients were compared within the groups.

Results

A total of 706 patients with a mean age of 61.78 ± 20.94 years and a mean follow-up period of 29.15 ± 14.28 months were evaluated. The mean age of the tenodesis group (58.13 ± 8.47) was significantly lower than the tenotomy group (61.52 ± 22.58) (p < 0.05). The mean CSS and VAS mean postoperatively in the tenotomy group (n = 587) were 76.84 ± 12.74 and 2.29 ± 2.78. The postoperative mean CSS and VAS in the tenodesis group (n = 119) were 77.56 ± 11.23 and 2.64 ± 2.70. There was no statistically significant difference between the postoperative clinical scores of patients who underwent tenotomy and patients who underwent tenodesis (p > 0.05). There was no difference between the tenotomy and tenodesis groups regarding Popeye deformity (p = 0.980). Bicipital groove tenderness and cramping in the biceps muscle were significantly higher in the tenodesis group (p < 0.001, < 0.001). Tenodesis was performed in 68, and tenotomy was performed in 315 out of 383 patients who underwent single-row rotator cuff repair. Tenodesis was performed in 51, and tenotomy was performed in 272 of 334 patients who underwent double-row rotator cuff repair. When singe versus double-row groups was compared, there was no significant difference in VAS, CSS, Popeye sing, bicipital groove tenderness, or biceps muscle cramping. When tenotomy versus tenodesis was compared within single- and double-row repair groups, there was no significant difference in VAS or CSS. There was no difference between the tenotomy and tenodesis groups regarding Popeye deformity, but bicipital groove tenderness and muscle cramping were more in tenodesis groups regardless of the repair rows.

Conclusions

The effect of tenodesis versus tenotomy for BHL pathologies in patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair was not significant for clinical scores, but bicipital groove tenderness and biceps muscle cramping were significantly higher in the tenodesis group.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

AvailablE.

Code availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Chen C-H, Hsu K-Y, Chen W-J, Shih C-H (2005) Incidence and severity of biceps long-head tendon lesion in patients with complete rotator cuff tears. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 58:1189–1193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Park JS, Kim SH, Jung HJ et al (2017) A prospective randomized study comparing the interference screw and suture anchor techniques for biceps tenodesis. Am J Sports Med 45:440–448

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kim J, Nam JH, Kim Y et al (2020) Long head of the biceps tendon tenotomy versus subpectoral tenodesis in rotator cuff repair. Clin Orthop Surg 12:371

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Patel KV, Bravman J, Vidal A et al (2016) Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis. Clin Sports Med 35:93–111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. MacDonald P, Verhulst F, McRae S et al (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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Aflatooni JO, Meeks BD, Froehle AW, Bonner KF (2020) Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction. J Orthop Surg Res 15:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhou P, Liu J, Deng X, Li Z (2021) Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis for lesions of the long head of the biceps tendon: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore) 100(3):e23993

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Belay ES, Wittstein JR, Garrigues GE et al (2019) Biceps tenotomy has earlier pain relief compared to biceps tenodesis: a randomized prospective study. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 27:4032–4037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mirzayan R, McCrum C, Butler RK, Alluri RK (2020) Risk factors and complications following arthroscopic tenotomy of the long head of the biceps tendon. Orthop J Sport Med 8:2325967120904361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Frost A, Zafar MS, Maffulli N (2009) Tenotomy versus tenodesis in the management of pathologic lesions of the tendon of the long head of the biceps brachii. Am J Sports Med 37:828–833

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kawashima I, Sugaya H, Takahashi N et al (2022) Biceps tenotomy versus soft-tissue tenodesis in females aged 60 years and older with rotator cuff tears. J Orthop Sci 27:786–791

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Osbahr DC, Diamond AB, Speer KP (2002) The cosmetic appearance of the biceps muscle after long-head tenotomy versus tenodesis. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg 18:483–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Walch G, Edwards TB, Boulahia A et al (2005) Arthroscopic tenotomy of the long head of the biceps in the treatment of rotator cuff tears: clinical and radiographic results of 307 cases. J Shoulder Elb Surg 14:238–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Duff SJ, Campbell PT (2012) Patient acceptance of long head of biceps brachii tenotomy. J Shoulder Elb Surg 21:61–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Slenker NR, Lawson K, Ciccotti MG et al (2012) Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: clinical outcomes. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg 28:576–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ahmad CS, ElAttrache NS (2003) Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis. Orthop Clin 34:499–506

    Google Scholar 

  18. Boileau P, Baqué F, Valerio L et al (2007) Isolated arthroscopic biceps tenotomy or tenodesis improves symptoms in patients with massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. JBJS 89:747–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Meraner D, Sternberg C, Vega J et al (2016) Arthroscopic tenodesis versus tenotomy of the long head of biceps tendon in simultaneous rotator cuff repair. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136:101–106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Belk JW, Kraeutler MJ, Houck DA et al (2020) Biceps tenodesis versus tenotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of level I randomized controlled trials. J Shoulder Elb Surg 30(5):951–969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Friedman JL, FitzPatrick JL, Rylander LS et al (2015) Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis in active patients younger than 55 years: is there a difference in strength and outcomes? Orthop J Sport Med 3:2325967115570848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Liu H, Song X, Liu P et al (2021) Clinical outcomes of arthroscopic tenodesis versus tenotomy for long head of the biceps tendon lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials and cohort studies. Orthop J Sport Med 9:2325967121993805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hsu AR, Ghodadra NS, Provencher CDRMT et al (2011) Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: a review of clinical outcomes and biomechanical results. J Shoulder Elb Surg 20:326–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Franceschi F, Longo UG, Ruzzini L et al (2007) To detach the long head of the biceps tendon after tenodesis or not: outcome analysis at the 4-year follow-up of two different techniques. Int Orthop 31:537–545

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Il LH, Shon MS, Koh KH et al (2014) Clinical and radiologic results of arthroscopic biceps tenodesis with suture anchor in the setting of rotator cuff tear. J Shoulder Elb Surg 23:e53–e60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Nemirov DA, Herman Z, Paul RW et al (2022) Evaluation of rotator cuff repair with and without concomitant biceps intervention: a retrospective review of patient outcomes. Am J Sports Med 50:1534–1540

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Godenèche A, Kempf J-F, Nové-Josserand L et al (2018) Tenodesis renders better results than tenotomy in repairs of isolated supraspinatus tears with pathologic biceps. J shoulder Elb Surg 27:1939–1945

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. De Carli A, Vadala A, Zanzotto E et al (2012) Reparable rotator cuff tears with concomitant long-head biceps lesions: tenotomy or tenotomy/tenodesis? Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 20:2553–2558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Wittstein JR, Queen R, Abbey A et al (2011) Isokinetic strength, endurance, and subjective outcomes after biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: a postoperative study. Am J Sports Med 39:857–865

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Castricini R, Familiari F, De Gori M et al (2018) Tenodesis is not superior to tenotomy in the treatment of the long head of biceps tendon lesions. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 26:169–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lee H-J, Jeong J-Y, Kim C-K, Kim Y-S (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 Elb Surg 25:1107–1114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Zhang Q, Zhou J, Cheng B (2015) Tenotomy or tenodesis for long head biceps lesions in shoulders with reparable rotator cuff tears: a prospective randomised trial. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 23:464–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

There is no acknowledgement.

Funding

We do not have any financial biases.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medicine, Orthopedics and Traumatology Department, Ankara University, Hand Surgery Unit, Sıhhiye, Ankara, TR, Turkey

    Yener Yoğun, Uğur Bezirgan & Mehmet Armangil

  2. Faculty of Medicine, Orthopedics and Traumatology Department, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey

    Merve Dursun

Authors
  1. Yener Yoğun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Uğur Bezirgan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Merve Dursun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mehmet Armangil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

YY: Wrote the paper, collected the data. UB: Performed the analysis, contributed data or analysis tools. MD: Performed the analysis, collected the data. MA: Conceived and design the analysis, wrote the paper, performed operations.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yener Yoğun.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical approval

We obtained ethical approval from review board of Ankara University Faculty of Medicine (No. 2021000412-12).

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for publication

Patients signed informed consent regarding publishing their data.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yoğun, Y., Bezirgan, U., Dursun, M. et al. Is biceps tenodesis necessary when performing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in patients older than 55 years?. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 143, 4267–4275 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-022-04707-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-022-04707-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation