Advertisement

Clinical Outcomes of Revision Biceps Tenodesis for Failed Long Head of Biceps Surgery: A Systematic Review

      Purpose

      We summarize the indications, assess the modes of failure, and analyze the clinical and functional outcomes of revision biceps tenodesis after failed primary surgical treatment of long head of biceps (LHB) pathology.

      Methods

      A computerized search of PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases and manual screening of selected article reference lists was performed in September 2020. Randomized controlled trial, cohort, case-control, and case series studies reporting clinical outcomes of revision biceps tenodesis following failed LHB surgery were eligible. Patient demographics, indications for revision, intraoperative findings, surgical techniques, and patient-reported outcomes were recorded. Functional assessment and pain scores were assessed and summarized as forest plots with means and 95% confidence intervals.

      Results

      Five of 465 identified studies met inclusion criteria, encompassing 70 revision biceps tenodesis procedures with mean follow-up of 2.4-6.4 years. The failed index procedure was biceps tenodesis in 62 patients and tenotomy in 8 patients. The most common indications for revision were pain or cramping and rerupture, cited by 4 and 3 articles, respectively. After failed conservative treatment, open subpectoral revision tenodesis was performed with concomitant arthroscopic debridement in 65 of 70 cases. Common intraoperative findings at time of revision were adhesions or scarring (39.0-83.0%), fixation failure (8.7-75.0%), and biceps rupture (17.4-80.0%). Revision tenodesis patients reported good to excellent functional outcomes with improvements in Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder, and visual analog scale pain scores, and satisfaction ranged from 88.0 to 100%. All studies demonstrated moderate quality of evidence and risk of bias when critically appraised.

      Conclusion

      This systematic review of 5 moderate risk of bias studies demonstrated that the most common reasons for revision biceps tenodesis were pain or cramping and rerupture. Open subpectoral revision tenodesis with concomitant arthroscopic debridement provided improvements in functional scores with high patient satisfaction at mid-term follow up.

      Level of Evidence

      IV, Systematic Review of level III and IV investigations.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic and Personal
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Arthroscopy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Boileau P.
        • Krishnan S.G.
        • Coste J.S.
        • Walch G.
        Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis: a new technique using bioabsorbable interference screw fixation.
        Arthroscopy. 2002; 18: 1002-1012
        • Froimson A.I.
        • Oh I.
        Keyhole tenodesis of biceps origin at the shoulder.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1975; Oct: 245-249
        • Romeo A.A.
        • Mazzocca A.D.
        • Tauro J.C.
        Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis.
        Arthroscopy. 2004; 20: 206-213
        • Varacallo M.
        • Mair S.D.
        Proximal biceps tendinitis and tendinopathy.
        StatPearls. Treasure Island. StatPearls Publishing, , FL2020
        • Heckman D.S.
        • Creighton R.A.
        • Romeo A.A.
        Management of failed biceps tenodesis or tenotomy: causation and treatment.
        Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2010; 18: 173-180
        • Abraham V.T.
        • Tan B.H.
        • Kumar V.P.
        Systematic review of biceps tenodesis: Arthroscopic versus open.
        Arthroscopy. 2016; 32: 365-371
        • Becker D.A.
        • Cofield R.H.
        Tenodesis of the long head of the biceps brachii for chronic bicipital tendinitis. Long-term results.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989; 71: 376-381
        • Checchia S.L.
        • Doneux P.S.
        • Miyazaki A.N.
        • et al.
        Biceps tenodesis associated with arthroscopic repair of rotator cuff tears.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005; 14: 138-144
        • Dines D.
        • Warren R.F.
        • Inglis A.E.
        Surgical treatment of lesions of the long head of the biceps.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982; 164: 165-171
        • Drakos M.C.
        • Verma N.N.
        • Gulotta L.V.
        • et al.
        Arthroscopic transfer of the long head of the biceps tendon: functional outcome and clinical results.
        Arthroscopy. 2008; 24: 217-223
        • Lee H.I.
        • Shon M.S.
        • Koh K.H.
        • Lim T.K.
        • Heo J.
        • Yoo J.C.
        Clinical and radiologic results of arthroscopic biceps tenodesis with suture anchor in the setting of rotator cuff tear.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014; 23: e53-e60
        • Mazzocca A.D.
        • Cote M.P.
        • Arciero C.L.
        • Romeo A.A.
        • Arciero R.A.
        Clinical outcomes after subpectoral biceps tenodesis with an interference screw.
        Am J Sports Med. 2008; 36: 1922-1929
        • McCormick F.
        • Nwachukwu B.U.
        • Solomon D.
        • et al.
        The efficacy of biceps tenodesis in the treatment of failed superior labral anterior posterior repairs.
        Am J Sports Med. 2014; 42: 820-825
        • Nho S.J.
        • Reiff S.N.
        • Verma N.N.
        • Slabaugh M.A.
        • Mazzocca A.D.
        • Romeo A.A.
        Complications associated with subpectoral biceps tenodesis: low rates of incidence following surgery.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010; 19: 764-768
        • Nord K.D.
        • Smith G.B.
        • Mauck B.M.
        Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis using suture anchors through the subclavian portal.
        Arthroscopy. 2005; 21: 248-252
        • Post M.
        • Benca P.
        Primary tendinitis of the long head of the biceps.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989; 246: 117-125
        • Verma N.N.
        • Drakos M.
        • O'Brien S.J.
        Arthroscopic transfer of the long head biceps to the conjoint tendon.
        Arthroscopy. 2005; 21: 764
        • Werner B.C.
        • Evans C.L.
        • Holzgrefe R.E.
        • et al.
        Arthroscopic suprapectoral and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis: a comparison of minimum 2-year clinical outcomes.
        Am J Sports Med. 2014; 42: 2583-2590
        • Wittstein J.R.
        • Queen R.
        • Abbey A.
        • Toth A.
        • Moorman 3rd, C.T.
        Isokinetic strength, endurance, and subjective outcomes after biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: a postoperative study.
        Am J Sports Med. 2011; 39: 857-865
        • Werner B.C.
        • Brockmeier S.F.
        • Gwathmey F.W.
        Trends in long head biceps tenodesis.
        Am J Sports Med. 2015; 43: 570-578
        • Gill T.J.
        • McIrvin E.
        • Mair S.D.
        • Hawkins R.J.
        Results of biceps tenotomy for treatment of pathology of the long head of the biceps brachii.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001; 10: 247-249
        • Kelly A.M.
        • Drakos M.C.
        • Fealy S.
        • Taylor S.A.
        • O'Brien S.J.
        Arthroscopic release of the long head of the biceps tendon: functional outcome and clinical results.
        Am J Sports Med. 2005; 33: 208-213
        • Walch G.
        • Edwards T.B.
        • Boulahia A.
        • Nove-Josserand L.
        • Neyton L.
        • Szabo I.
        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 Elbow Surg. 2005; 14: 238-246
        • Lutton D.M.
        • Gruson K.I.
        • Harrison A.K.
        • Gladstone J.N.
        • Flatow E.L.
        Where to tenodese the biceps: proximal or distal?.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011; 469: 1050-1055
        • Sanders B.
        • Lavery K.P.
        • Pennington S.
        • Warner J.J.
        Clinical success of biceps tenodesis with and without release of the transverse humeral ligament.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012; 21: 66-71
        • Murthi A.M.
        • Vosburgh C.L.
        • Neviaser T.J.
        The incidence of pathologic changes of the long head of the biceps tendon.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2000; 9: 382-385
        • Friedman D.J.
        • Dunn J.C.
        • Higgins L.D.
        • Warner J.J.
        Proximal biceps tendon: injuries and management.
        Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2008; 16: 162-169
        • Anthony S.G.
        • McCormick F.
        • Gross D.J.
        • Golijanin P.
        • Provencher M.T.
        Biceps tenodesis for long head of the biceps after auto-rupture or failed surgical tenotomy: results in an active population.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015; 24: e36-e40
        • Euler S.A.
        • Horan M.P.
        • Ellman M.B.
        • Greenspoon J.A.
        • Millett P.J.
        Chronic rupture of the long head of the biceps tendon: comparison of 2-year results following primary versus revision open subpectoral biceps tenodesis.
        Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016; 136: 657-663
        • Gregory J.M.
        • Harwood D.P.
        • Gochanour E.
        • Sherman S.L.
        • Romeo A.A.
        Clinical outcomes of revision biceps tenodesis.
        Int J Shoulder Surg. 2012; 6: 45-50
        • Peebles L.A.
        • Midtgaard K.S.
        • Aman Z.S.
        • et al.
        Conversion of failed proximal long head of the biceps tenodesis to distal subpectoral tenodesis: Outcomes in an active population.
        Arthroscopy. 2020; 36: 2975-2981
        • Savin D.D.
        • Waterman B.R.
        • Sumner S.
        • et al.
        Management of failed proximal biceps surgery: Clinical outcomes after revision to subpectoral biceps tenodesis.
        Am J Sports Med. 2020; 48: 460-465
        • Moher D.
        • Liberati A.
        • Tetzlaff J.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Group P.
        Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.
        PLoS Med. 2009; 6e1000097
        • Sterne J.A.
        • Hernan M.A.
        • Reeves B.C.
        • et al.
        ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions.
        BMJ. 2016; 355: i4919
        • Slim K.
        • Nini E.
        • Forestier D.
        • Kwiatkowski F.
        • Panis Y.
        • Chipponi J.
        Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument.
        ANZ J Surg. 2003; 73: 712-716
        • Boutron I.
        • Page M.J.
        • Higgins J.P.T.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Lundh A.
        • Hróbjartsson A.
        Chapter 7: Considering bias and conflicts of interest among the included studies.
        in: Higgins J.P.T. Thomas J. Chandler J. Cumpston M. Li T. Page M.J. Welch V.A. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2. Cochrane. 2021 (Available from)
        • Dalton J.E.
        • Bolen S.D.
        • Mascha E.J.
        Publication Bias: The elephant in the review.
        Anesth Analg. 2016; 123: 812-813
        • Hozo S.P.
        • Djulbegovic B.
        • Hozo I.
        Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample.
        BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005; 5: 13
        • Soroceanu A.
        • Sidhwa F.
        • Aarabi S.
        • Kaufman A.
        • Glazebrook M.
        Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment of acute Achilles tendon rupture: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012; 94: 2136-2143
        • Kooner S.
        • Johal H.
        • Clark M.
        Bicompartmental knee arthroplasty vs total knee arthroplasty for the treatment of medial compartment and patellofemoral osteoarthritis.
        Arthroplast Today. 2017; 3: 309-314
        • Zhang K.
        • Jiang H.
        • Li J.
        • Fu W.
        Comparison between surgical and nonsurgical treatment for primary patellar dislocations in adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.
        Orthop J Sports Med. 2020; 8 (2325967120946446)
        • Ro K.H.
        • Kim J.H.
        • Heo J.W.
        • Lee D.H.
        Clinical and radiological outcomes of meniscal repair versus partial meniscectomy for medial meniscus root tears: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Orthop J Sports Med. 2020; 8 (2325967120962078)
        • Lu F.
        • Yan Y.
        • Wang W.
        • Zhang Q.
        • Guo W.
        Does patellofemoral osteoarthritis affect functional outcomes and survivorship after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty? A meta-analysis.
        J Orthop Surg Res. 2020; 15: 584
        • Forsythe B.
        • Agarwalla A.
        • Puzzitiello R.N.
        • Mascarenhas R.
        • Werner B.C.
        Rates and risk factors for revision open and arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis.
        Orthop J Sports Med. 2019; 7 (2325967118825473)
        • Vellios E.E.
        • Nazemi A.K.
        • Yeranosian M.G.
        • et al.
        Demographic trends in arthroscopic and open biceps tenodesis across the United States.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015; 24: e279-e285
        • Creech M.J.
        • Yeung M.
        • Denkers M.
        • Simunovic N.
        • Athwal G.S.
        • Ayeni O.R.
        Surgical indications for long head biceps tenodesis: a systematic review.
        Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016; 24: 2156-2166
        • Slenker N.R.
        • Lawson K.
        • Ciccotti M.G.
        • Dodson C.C.
        • Cohen S.B.
        Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: clinical outcomes.
        Arthroscopy. 2012; 28: 576-582