Cargando…

Open subpectoral vs. arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis: A comparison study of clinical outcomes

The purpose of the present study was to compare the results of open subpectoral biceps tenodesis and arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis for treating long head of biceps (LHB) lesions. From January 2015 to June 2016, a total of 259 patients underwent LHB tenodesis surgery. Among them, 117 patient...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tu, Jun, Xu, Bin, Guo, Ruipeng
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: D.A. Spandidos 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6909789/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31853318
http://dx.doi.org/10.3892/etm.2019.8232
_version_ 1783478996150779904
author Tu, Jun
Xu, Bin
Guo, Ruipeng
author_facet Tu, Jun
Xu, Bin
Guo, Ruipeng
author_sort Tu, Jun
collection PubMed
description The purpose of the present study was to compare the results of open subpectoral biceps tenodesis and arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis for treating long head of biceps (LHB) lesions. From January 2015 to June 2016, a total of 259 patients underwent LHB tenodesis surgery. Among them, 117 patients (60 females and 57 males) who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were enrolled into the present study and were randomly divided into two groups, including an open subpectoral tenodesis group (OSPBT; n=62) and an arthroscopic proximal tenodesis group (ASPBT; n=55). All patients were followed up for at least 12 months. The demographic characteristics of each patient were recorded in detail. Moreover, clinical examinations of LHB lesions, such as shoulder range of motion (ROM), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores (0, no pain, to 10, most severe pain), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, and Constant-Murley shoulder outcome scores, were investigated prior to surgery, as well as 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. Postoperative complications were also comprehensively investigated. There were no significant differences in sex, body mass index, dominant shoulder, duration of pain, injury type and operation time between the groups. The mean length of hospital stay in the ASPBT group was significantly lower than that of the OSPBT group (5.4±1.8 days vs. 9.3±2.9 days; P<0.05). The clinical outcomes, including shoulder ROMs, VAS scores, ASES scores and Constant-Murley shoulder outcome scores, were significantly improved after either OSPBT or ASPBT treatment. Specifically, the VAS score, incidence of postoperative stiffness and bicipital groove tenderness in the OSPBT group were significantly lower than those in the ASPBT group at 3 months post-surgery (P<0.05). Additionally, there were no significant difference in the improvement of other clinical outcomes and postoperative complications between the two groups. ASPBT and OSPBT were both effective and safe techniques for treating LHB lesions. However, tenderness of the bicipital groove was more common in the early stages of recovery post-surgery in the ASPBT group, which may be related to tendinitis of the LHB in the bicipital groove.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6909789
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher D.A. Spandidos
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69097892019-12-18 Open subpectoral vs. arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis: A comparison study of clinical outcomes Tu, Jun Xu, Bin Guo, Ruipeng Exp Ther Med Articles The purpose of the present study was to compare the results of open subpectoral biceps tenodesis and arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis for treating long head of biceps (LHB) lesions. From January 2015 to June 2016, a total of 259 patients underwent LHB tenodesis surgery. Among them, 117 patients (60 females and 57 males) who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were enrolled into the present study and were randomly divided into two groups, including an open subpectoral tenodesis group (OSPBT; n=62) and an arthroscopic proximal tenodesis group (ASPBT; n=55). All patients were followed up for at least 12 months. The demographic characteristics of each patient were recorded in detail. Moreover, clinical examinations of LHB lesions, such as shoulder range of motion (ROM), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores (0, no pain, to 10, most severe pain), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, and Constant-Murley shoulder outcome scores, were investigated prior to surgery, as well as 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. Postoperative complications were also comprehensively investigated. There were no significant differences in sex, body mass index, dominant shoulder, duration of pain, injury type and operation time between the groups. The mean length of hospital stay in the ASPBT group was significantly lower than that of the OSPBT group (5.4±1.8 days vs. 9.3±2.9 days; P<0.05). The clinical outcomes, including shoulder ROMs, VAS scores, ASES scores and Constant-Murley shoulder outcome scores, were significantly improved after either OSPBT or ASPBT treatment. Specifically, the VAS score, incidence of postoperative stiffness and bicipital groove tenderness in the OSPBT group were significantly lower than those in the ASPBT group at 3 months post-surgery (P<0.05). Additionally, there were no significant difference in the improvement of other clinical outcomes and postoperative complications between the two groups. ASPBT and OSPBT were both effective and safe techniques for treating LHB lesions. However, tenderness of the bicipital groove was more common in the early stages of recovery post-surgery in the ASPBT group, which may be related to tendinitis of the LHB in the bicipital groove. D.A. Spandidos 2020-01 2019-11-22 /pmc/articles/PMC6909789/ /pubmed/31853318 http://dx.doi.org/10.3892/etm.2019.8232 Text en Copyright: © Tu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Articles
Tu, Jun
Xu, Bin
Guo, Ruipeng
Open subpectoral vs. arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis: A comparison study of clinical outcomes
title Open subpectoral vs. arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis: A comparison study of clinical outcomes
title_full Open subpectoral vs. arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis: A comparison study of clinical outcomes
title_fullStr Open subpectoral vs. arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis: A comparison study of clinical outcomes
title_full_unstemmed Open subpectoral vs. arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis: A comparison study of clinical outcomes
title_short Open subpectoral vs. arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis: A comparison study of clinical outcomes
title_sort open subpectoral vs. arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis: a comparison study of clinical outcomes
topic Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6909789/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31853318
http://dx.doi.org/10.3892/etm.2019.8232
work_keys_str_mv AT tujun opensubpectoralvsarthroscopicproximalbicepstenodesisacomparisonstudyofclinicaloutcomes
AT xubin opensubpectoralvsarthroscopicproximalbicepstenodesisacomparisonstudyofclinicaloutcomes
AT guoruipeng opensubpectoralvsarthroscopicproximalbicepstenodesisacomparisonstudyofclinicaloutcomes