Outcomes of Biceps Tenodesis Variations With Concomitant Rotator Cuff Repair: A Multicenter Database Analysis

BACKGROUND: Studies to date comparing biceps tenodesis methods in the setting of concomitant rotator cuff repair (RCR) have demonstrated relatively equivalent pain and functional outcomes. PURPOSE: To compare biceps tenodesis constructs, locations, and techniques in patients who underwent RCR using a large multicenter database. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A global outcome database was queried for patients with medium- and large-sized tears who underwent biceps tenodesis with RCR between 2015 and 2021. Patients ≥18 years of age with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were included. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, visual analog scale for pain, and Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) scores were compared at 1 and 2 years of follow-up based on construct (anchor, screw, or suture), location (subpectoral, suprapectoral, or top of groove), and technique (inlay or onlay). Nonparametric hypothesis testing was used to compare continuous outcomes at each time point. The proportion of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at the 1- and 2-year follow-ups were compared between groups using chi-square tests. RESULTS: A total of 1903 unique shoulder entries were analyzed. Improvement in VR-12 Mental score favored anchor and suture fixations at 1 year of follow-up (P = .042) and the onlay tenodesis technique at 2 years of follow-up (P = .029). No additional tenodesis comparisons demonstrated statistical significance. The proportion of patients with improvement exceeding the MCID did not differ based on tenodesis methods for any outcome score assessed at the 1- or 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: Biceps tenodesis with concomitant RCR led to improved outcomes regardless of tenodesis fixation construct, location, or technique. A clear optimal tenodesis method with RCR remains to be determined. Surgeon preference and experience with various tenodesis methods as well as patient clinical presentation should continue to guide surgical decision-making.