Cargando…
Clinical outcomes of revision biceps tenodesis
PURPOSE: Biceps tenotomy and tenodesis are effective treatment options for biceps pathology, but outcomes of revision surgery are not known. This study examines the clinical outcomes of patients who have undergone a revision biceps tenodesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of all pati...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3391784/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22787333 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0973-6042.96993 |
Sumario: | PURPOSE: Biceps tenotomy and tenodesis are effective treatment options for biceps pathology, but outcomes of revision surgery are not known. This study examines the clinical outcomes of patients who have undergone a revision biceps tenodesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients since 2004 (N = 21) who had undergone a revision biceps tenodesis with greater than 6-month follow-up was completed. A follow-up survey was carried out, and the visual analog scale (VAS), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and University of California – Los Angeles (UCLA) scores were obtained, along with SF-12 Mental (MCS-12) and Physical Component Summaries (PCS-12). RESULTS: Indications for revision surgery were continued pain (14) and ruptured biceps (7). Complete follow-up examinations were performed in 15 of 21 patients (71.4%). Average follow-up was 33.4 ± 23.5 months. The mean postoperative scores were 1.9 out of 10, VAS; 79 out of 100, SANE; 10.2 out of 12, SST; 83 out of 100, ASES; 29 out of 35, UCLA; 44, PCS- 12; and 47.1, MCS- 12. Five patients were considered failures with a UCLA score below 27. Seventeen of twenty-one patient underwent concomitant procedures. Complete preoperative and postoperative data were collected for 14 patients. All scores demonstrated highly significant improvement from preoperative levels (P < 0.005), except for the MCS-12. There was no statistically significant difference in the outcomes of revision due to rupture and revision due to persistent pain. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that revision subpectoral biceps tenodesis provides significant pain relief and improvement in functional outcomes at a mean follow-up of 33.4 months. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Case Series, Level 4. |
---|