TY - JOUR
T1 - Tenotomy or Tenodesis for Tendinopathy of the Long Head of the Biceps Brachii: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
AU - Kooistra, Bauke
AU - Gurnani, Navin
AU - Weening, Alexander
AU - van Deurzen, Derek
AU - van den Bekerom, Michel
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors report the following potential conflicts of interest: M.v d B and D. v D. have received research funding from Wright Medical and fellowship funding from Smith and Nephew. Full ICMJE author disclosure forms are available for this article online, as supplementary material.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Arthroscopy Association of North America
Copyright:
Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2021/8/1
Y1 - 2021/8/1
N2 - Purpose: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to provide an up-to-date comparison of clinical outcomes of tenotomy and tenodesis in the surgical treatment of long head of the biceps brachii (LHB) tendinopathy. Methods: A literature search was conducted in EMBASE, Pubmed/Medline and the Cochrane database from January 2000 to May 2020. All studies comparing clinical outcomes between LHB tenotomy and tenodesis were included. Quality was assessed using the Coleman score. Results: We included 25 studies (8 randomized studies) comprising 2,191 patients undergoing LHB tenotomy or tenodesis, with or without concomitant shoulder procedures (mainly rotator cuff repairs). The Coleman score ranged from 29 to 97 for all studies. When comparing tenodesis and tenotomy in randomized studies, no clinically relevant differences were found in the Constant score (mean difference, 0.9 points), the American Shoulder and Elbow Society Score (mean difference, 1.1 points), shoulder pain (mean difference in visual analogue scale, -0.3 points), elbow flexion strength loss (mean difference, 0%), or forearm supination strength (mean difference, 3%). A Popeye deformity (odds ratio, 0.32) was less commonly seen in patients treated with tenodesis (9% vs 23%). Conclusion: In our meta-analysis, a Popeye deformity was more frequently observed in patients treated with tenotomy. Based on a substantial number of studies, there is no evidence-based benefit of LHB tenodesis over tenotomy in terms of shoulder function, shoulder pain or biceps-related strength. It is unclear whether LHB tenodesis is of benefit in specific patient groups such as younger individuals. Level of evidence: Level III, systematic review of level III or higher studies.
AB - Purpose: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to provide an up-to-date comparison of clinical outcomes of tenotomy and tenodesis in the surgical treatment of long head of the biceps brachii (LHB) tendinopathy. Methods: A literature search was conducted in EMBASE, Pubmed/Medline and the Cochrane database from January 2000 to May 2020. All studies comparing clinical outcomes between LHB tenotomy and tenodesis were included. Quality was assessed using the Coleman score. Results: We included 25 studies (8 randomized studies) comprising 2,191 patients undergoing LHB tenotomy or tenodesis, with or without concomitant shoulder procedures (mainly rotator cuff repairs). The Coleman score ranged from 29 to 97 for all studies. When comparing tenodesis and tenotomy in randomized studies, no clinically relevant differences were found in the Constant score (mean difference, 0.9 points), the American Shoulder and Elbow Society Score (mean difference, 1.1 points), shoulder pain (mean difference in visual analogue scale, -0.3 points), elbow flexion strength loss (mean difference, 0%), or forearm supination strength (mean difference, 3%). A Popeye deformity (odds ratio, 0.32) was less commonly seen in patients treated with tenodesis (9% vs 23%). Conclusion: In our meta-analysis, a Popeye deformity was more frequently observed in patients treated with tenotomy. Based on a substantial number of studies, there is no evidence-based benefit of LHB tenodesis over tenotomy in terms of shoulder function, shoulder pain or biceps-related strength. It is unclear whether LHB tenodesis is of benefit in specific patient groups such as younger individuals. Level of evidence: Level III, systematic review of level III or higher studies.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85112132893&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.asmr.2021.02.010
DO - 10.1016/j.asmr.2021.02.010
M3 - Review article
C2 - 34430901
VL - 3
SP - e1199-e1209
JO - Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation
JF - Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation
SN - 2666-061X
IS - 4
ER -