Suprapectoral vs. Intra Articular Biceps Tenodesis: A Comparison of Clinical Outcomes

• Published in: Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine 2018-07, Vol.6 (7_suppl4)
• Main Authors: Godshaw, Brian M., Kolodychuk, Nicholas, Browning, Benjamin Bryan, Williams, Gerard, Burdette, Rachel, Jones, Deryk G.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Clinical outcomes; Orthopedics; Sports medicine
• ISSN: 2325-9671; 2325-9671
• DOI: 10.1177/2325967118S00108

Objectives: The long head of the biceps tendon is a frequent pain generator within the shoulder. It is subjected to trauma and wear within the glenohumeral joint and within the intertubercular groove. Tenodesis of this tendon is a common treatment option for patients experiencing biceps tendon related pain. There are several different techniques to perform this procedure. Proximal intra-articular tenodesis can be performed but leaves the tendon within the intertubercular groove. Alternatively, suprapectoral tenodesis can be performed removing the tendon from the bicipital groove and sheath while avoiding conversion to an open procedure. Further, suprapectoral tenodesis limits complications associated with an open distally based incision. Several studies have compared these techniques to tenotomy or open-subpectoral tenodesis. This is the first study to directly compare patient outcomes between intra-articular and suprapectoral bicep tenodeses. Methods: Retrospective review of patients undergoing intra-articular or suprapectoral arthroscopic biceps tenodesis from 2010 - 2015. Clinical outcomes were measured at set intervals post-operatively (3 months, 6 months, and 12 months) and compared to pre-operative scores. Outcome measures included short form-12, both physical (PSF) and mental (MSF) component scores, and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES). Results: A total of 96 patients were available for this study, 43 had intra-articular tenodesis and 56 had suprapectoral tenodesis. There was no difference in functional outcomes between intra and extra articular biceps tenodesis at 1-year post-operative. The intra-articular group had a quicker improvement in scores with the greatest increase at 3 months post-operatively, specifically in PSF group (p=0.016): however, this difference leveled off at 1-year follow up (p=0.238). The intra-articular group had greater absolute scores at all measured time points, but not significantly. Both groups showed improvement in all outcome measures and there was found to be no difference in changes for ASES, PSF, or MSF (p=0.262, p=0.489, and p=0.907 respectively). Conclusion: This study demonstrates that both intra-articular and surpapectoral techniques are acceptable options for biceps tenodesis. Despite leaving the biceps tendon within the glenohumeral joint and intertubercular groove, the intra-articular technique offers similar improvement in outcome measures to the suprapectoral technique.