Outcomes of Subpectoral Tenodesis in the Treatment of Proximal Biceps Pathologies

Overview

Journal Cureus

Date 2025 Jan 27

PMID 39867040

Authors

Bernardo P Hespanhol

Armando Secundino

Filipe Baracho

Carina Cohen

Fernanda Piva

Pedro Machado

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction The aim of this article is to evaluate the clinical and functional outcomes of subpectoral tenodesis of the long head of the biceps (LHB) in the treatment of proximal biceps pathologies. Methods A retrospective, cross-sectional study was conducted through the analysis of medical records from 24 patients and 26 shoulders who underwent the subpectoral tenodesis technique using bone tunnels. Three patients were excluded due to insufficient data to calculate the functional scores. The final study sample comprised 21 patients and 23 shoulders. Clinical and functional outcomes were evaluated based on the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Score and the Long Head of Biceps (LHB) Score. Additionally, the main indications for the procedure and potential complications were thoroughly assessed. Results The average follow-up time was four years and, of the 21 patients (23 shoulders), 19 (82.6%) were male and 4 (17.4%) were female shoulders, with a mean age of 41.6 years. The main indication for surgery was superior labral anterior to posterior injury in 12 (52.2%) cases, followed by subluxation and tenosynovitis. No case presented aesthetic deformity or pain on palpation at the LHB. Patients showed significant improvement in the ASES score (average from 75.13 to 98.52) and LHB score (average from 68.82 to 98.34). Conclusion The subpectoral tenodesis technique is a safe procedure, with good clinical and functional outcomes for the treatment of proximal biceps pathologies.

References

Churgay C . Diagnosis and treatment of biceps tendinitis and tendinosis. Am Fam Physician. 2009; 80(5):470-6. View

Godinho G, Mesquita F, Franca F, Freitas J . "ROCAMBOLE-LIKE" BICEPS TENODESIS: TECHNIQUE AND RESULTS. Rev Bras Ortop. 2016; 46(6):691-6. PMC: 4799325. DOI: 10.1016/S2255-4971(15)30326-8. View

Boileau P, Parratte S, Chuinard C, Roussanne Y, Shia D, Bicknell R . Arthroscopic treatment of isolated type II SLAP lesions: biceps tenodesis as an alternative to reinsertion. Am J Sports Med. 2009; 37(5):929-36. DOI: 10.1177/0363546508330127. View

Nho S, Strauss E, Lenart B, Provencher M, Mazzocca A, Verma N . Long head of the biceps tendinopathy: diagnosis and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2010; 18(11):645-56. DOI: 10.5435/00124635-201011000-00002. View

Provencher M, McCormick F, Peebles L, Beaulieu-Jones B, Dekker T, LeClere L . Outcomes of Primary Biceps Subpectoral Tenodesis in an Active Population: A Prospective Evaluation of 101 Patients. Arthroscopy. 2019; 35(12):3205-3210. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2019.06.035. View

Murthi A, Vosburgh C, Neviaser T . The incidence of pathologic changes of the long head of the biceps tendon. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2000; 9(5):382-5. DOI: 10.1067/mse.2000.108386. View

Denard P, Dai X, Hanypsiak B, Burkhart S . Anatomy of the biceps tendon: implications for restoring physiological length-tension relation during biceps tenodesis with interference screw fixation. Arthroscopy. 2012; 28(10):1352-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2012.04.143. View

Levy D, Meyer Z, Campbell K, Bach Jr B . Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2016; 45(2):68-74. View

Frost A, Zafar M, Maffulli N . Tenotomy versus tenodesis in the management of pathologic lesions of the tendon of the long head of the biceps brachii. Am J Sports Med. 2008; 37(4):828-33. DOI: 10.1177/0363546508322179. View

10.

Cardoso A, Amaro P, Barbosa L, Coelho A, Alonso R, Pires L . Diagnostic accuracy of clinical tests directed to the long head of biceps tendon in a surgical population: a combination of old and new tests. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019; 28(12):2272-2278. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2019.07.007. View

11.

Boileau P, Baque F, Valerio L, Ahrens P, Chuinard C, Trojani C . Isolated arthroscopic biceps tenotomy or tenodesis improves symptoms in patients with massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89(4):747-57. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.E.01097. View

12.

Gombera M, Kahlenberg C, Nair R, Saltzman M, Terry M . All-arthroscopic suprapectoral versus open subpectoral tenodesis of the long head of the biceps brachii. Am J Sports Med. 2015; 43(5):1077-83. DOI: 10.1177/0363546515570024. View

13.

Scheibel M, Ralf-Jurgen Schroder , Chen J, Bartsch M . Arthroscopic soft tissue tenodesis versus bony fixation anchor tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon. Am J Sports Med. 2011; 39(5):1046-52. DOI: 10.1177/0363546510390777. View

14.

Lutton D, Gruson K, Harrison A, Gladstone J, Flatow E . Where to tenodese the biceps: proximal or distal?. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010; 469(4):1050-5. PMC: 3048262. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-010-1691-z. View

15.

Beall D, Williamson E, Ly J, Adkins M, Emery R, Jones T . 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. 2003; 180(3):633-9. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.180.3.1800633. View

16.

Mazzocca A, Bicos J, Santangelo S, Romeo A, Arciero R . The biomechanical evaluation of four fixation techniques for proximal biceps tenodesis. Arthroscopy. 2005; 21(11):1296-306. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2005.08.008. View

17.

Zanetti M, Weishaupt D, Gerber C, Hodler J . Tendinopathy and rupture of the tendon of the long head of the biceps brachii muscle: evaluation with MR arthrography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998; 170(6):1557-61. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.170.6.9609174. View

18.

Millett P, Sanders B, Gobezie R, Braun S, Warner J . Interference screw vs. suture anchor fixation for open subpectoral biceps tenodesis: does it matter?. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008; 9:121. PMC: 2553411. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-9-121. View