Atri LJ, Miranda OLA, Sánchez RR, Calderón JM

Language: Spanish
References: 12
Page: 24-28
PDF size: 232.87 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: In recent years, an increase in the incidence of the long head of the bicep's lesions associated with rotator cuff tears has been found, these injuries are commonly detected by arthroscopy. The two main surgical methods for its repair are tenotomy and tenodesis. At the ABC Medical Center, the short-term functionality after intra-articular and subpectoral tenodesis is unknown. Objective: Compare functional results of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score between arthroscopic intra-articular and open subpectoral tenodesis of the long head of the biceps in patients with rotator cuff tear. Material and methods: We consecutively included patients between 18 and 65 years old who underwent surgery for arthroscopic intraarticular tenodesis (control) or open subpectoral (cases) of the long head of the biceps associated with rotator cuff repair. ASES functionality scores were compared between groups. Results: There is a tendency for the ASES score in the subpectoral tenodesis group to be higher, however, we did not find a significant statistical difference (p = 0.24) there is a tendency for the ASES score to decrease with age. Conclusion: Both techniques are reproducible and with comparable levels of satisfaction.

REFERENCES

1. Mardani-Kivi M, Keyhani S, Ebrahim-Zadeh MH, Hashemi-Motlagh K, Saheb-Ekhtiari K. Rotator cuff tear with concomitant long head of biceps tendon (LHBT) degeneration: what is the preferred choice? Open subpectoral versus arthroscopic intraarticular tenodesis. J Orthop Traumatol. 2019; 20 (1): 26. doi: 10.1186/s10195-019-0531-5.

2. Frank RM, Cotter EJ, Strauss EJ, Jazrawi LM, Romeo AA. Management of biceps tendon pathology: from the glenoid to the radial tuberosity. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018; 26 (4): e77-e89. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-17-00085.

3. Snyder GM, Mair SD, Lattermann C. Tendinopathy of the long head of the biceps. Med Sport Sci. 2012; 57: 76-89. doi: 10.1159/000328880.

4. Murthi AM, Vosburgh CL, Neviaser TJ. The incidence of pathologic changes of the long head of the biceps tendon. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2000; 9 (5): 382-385. doi: 10.1067/mse.2000.108386.

5. Ditsios K, Agathangelidis F, Boutsiadis A, Karataglis D, Papadopoulos P. Long head of the biceps pathology combined with rotator cuff tears. Adv Orthop. 2012; 2012: 405472. doi: 10.1155/2012/405472.

6. Maffulli N, Papalia R, Torre G, Vasta S, Papalia G, Denaro V. No difference between tenotomy vs tenodesis for the long head of the biceps tendinopathy in rotator cuff repair: a systematic review. JISAKOS. 2017; 2: 89-96. doi: 10.1136/jisakos-2016-000081.

7. Abraham VT, Tan BH, Kumar VP. Systematic review of biceps tenodesis: arthroscopic versus open. Arthroscopy. 2016; 32 (2): 365-371. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2015.07.028.

8. Gombera MM, Kahlenberg CA, Nair R, Saltzman MD, Terry MA. All-arthroscopic suprapectoral versus open subpectoral tenodesis of the long head of the biceps brachii. Am J Sports Med. 2015; 43 (5): 1077-1083. doi: 10.1177/0363546515570024.

9. Brady PC, Narbona P, Adams CR, Huberty D, Parten P, Hartzler RU et al. Arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis at the articular margin: evaluation of outcomes, complications, and revision rate. Arthroscopy. 2015; 31 (3): 470-476. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2014.08.024.

10. Richards RR, An KN, Bigliani LU, Friedman RJ, Gartsman GM, Gristina AG et al. A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1994; 3 (6): 347-352. doi: 10.1016/S1058-2746(09)? 80019-0.

11. Anil U, Hurley ET, Kingery MT, Pauzenberger L, Mullett H, Strauss EJ. Surgical treatment for long head of the biceps tendinopathy: a network meta-analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020; 29 (6): 1289-1295. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2019.10.021.

12. Nho SJ, Reiff SN, Verma NN, Slabaugh MA, Mazzocca AD, Romeo AA. Complications associated with subpectoral biceps tenodesis: low rates of incidence following surgery. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010; 19 (5): 764-468. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2010.01.024.

EVIDENCE LEVEL

IV