Cargando…

Clinical Outcomes of Arthroscopic Tenodesis Versus Tenotomy for Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials and Cohort Studies

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists concerning whether tenotomy or tenodesis is the optimal surgical treatment option for proximal biceps tendon lesions. PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical outcomes after arthroscopic tenodesis and tenotomy in the treatment of long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) lesions....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liu, Hongzhi, Song, Xinqiu, Liu, Pei, Yu, Huachen, Zhang, Qidong, Guo, Wanshou
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8071980/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33997057
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967121993805
_version_ 1783683824092184576
author Liu, Hongzhi
Song, Xinqiu
Liu, Pei
Yu, Huachen
Zhang, Qidong
Guo, Wanshou
author_facet Liu, Hongzhi
Song, Xinqiu
Liu, Pei
Yu, Huachen
Zhang, Qidong
Guo, Wanshou
author_sort Liu, Hongzhi
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Controversy exists concerning whether tenotomy or tenodesis is the optimal surgical treatment option for proximal biceps tendon lesions. PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical outcomes after arthroscopic tenodesis and tenotomy in the treatment of long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) lesions. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that compared the clinical efficacy of tenotomy with that of tenodesis for LHBT lesions. A standardized data extraction form was predesigned to obtain bibliographic information of the study as well as patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome data. A random-effects model was used to pool quantitative data from the primary outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 21 eligible studies were separated into 3 methodological groups: (1) 4 RCTs with level 1 evidence, (2) 3 RCTs and 4 prospective cohort studies with level 2 evidence, and (3) 10 retrospective cohort studies with level 3 to 4 evidence. Analysis of the 3 groups demonstrated a significantly higher risk of the Popeye sign after tenotomy versus tenodesis (group 1: risk ratio [RR], 3.29 [95% CI, 1.92-5.49]; group 2: RR, 2.35 [95% CI, 1.43-3.85]; and group 3: RR, 2.57 [95% CI, 1.33-4.98]). Arm cramping pain remained significantly higher after tenotomy only in the retrospective cohort group (RR, 2.17 [95% CI, 1.20-3.95]). The Constant score for tenotomy was significantly worse than that for tenodesis in the prospective cohort group (standardized mean difference [SMD], –0.47 [95% CI, –0.73 to –0.21]), as were the forearm supination strength index (SMD, –0.75 [95% CI, –1.28 to –0.21]) and the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) score (SMD, –0.60 [95% CI, –0.94 to –0.27]). CONCLUSION: The results demonstrated that compared with tenodesis, tenotomy had a higher risk of a Popeye deformity in all 3 study groups; worse functional outcomes in terms of the Constant score, forearm supination strength index, and SST score according to prospective cohort studies; and a higher incidence of arm cramping pain according to retrospective cohort studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8071980
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80719802021-05-13 Clinical Outcomes of Arthroscopic Tenodesis Versus Tenotomy for Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials and Cohort Studies Liu, Hongzhi Song, Xinqiu Liu, Pei Yu, Huachen Zhang, Qidong Guo, Wanshou Orthop J Sports Med Article BACKGROUND: Controversy exists concerning whether tenotomy or tenodesis is the optimal surgical treatment option for proximal biceps tendon lesions. PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical outcomes after arthroscopic tenodesis and tenotomy in the treatment of long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) lesions. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that compared the clinical efficacy of tenotomy with that of tenodesis for LHBT lesions. A standardized data extraction form was predesigned to obtain bibliographic information of the study as well as patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome data. A random-effects model was used to pool quantitative data from the primary outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 21 eligible studies were separated into 3 methodological groups: (1) 4 RCTs with level 1 evidence, (2) 3 RCTs and 4 prospective cohort studies with level 2 evidence, and (3) 10 retrospective cohort studies with level 3 to 4 evidence. Analysis of the 3 groups demonstrated a significantly higher risk of the Popeye sign after tenotomy versus tenodesis (group 1: risk ratio [RR], 3.29 [95% CI, 1.92-5.49]; group 2: RR, 2.35 [95% CI, 1.43-3.85]; and group 3: RR, 2.57 [95% CI, 1.33-4.98]). Arm cramping pain remained significantly higher after tenotomy only in the retrospective cohort group (RR, 2.17 [95% CI, 1.20-3.95]). The Constant score for tenotomy was significantly worse than that for tenodesis in the prospective cohort group (standardized mean difference [SMD], –0.47 [95% CI, –0.73 to –0.21]), as were the forearm supination strength index (SMD, –0.75 [95% CI, –1.28 to –0.21]) and the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) score (SMD, –0.60 [95% CI, –0.94 to –0.27]). CONCLUSION: The results demonstrated that compared with tenodesis, tenotomy had a higher risk of a Popeye deformity in all 3 study groups; worse functional outcomes in terms of the Constant score, forearm supination strength index, and SST score according to prospective cohort studies; and a higher incidence of arm cramping pain according to retrospective cohort studies. SAGE Publications 2021-04-23 /pmc/articles/PMC8071980/ /pubmed/33997057 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967121993805 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work as published without adaptation or alteration, without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Article
Liu, Hongzhi
Song, Xinqiu
Liu, Pei
Yu, Huachen
Zhang, Qidong
Guo, Wanshou
Clinical Outcomes of Arthroscopic Tenodesis Versus Tenotomy for Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials and Cohort Studies
title Clinical Outcomes of Arthroscopic Tenodesis Versus Tenotomy for Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials and Cohort Studies
title_full Clinical Outcomes of Arthroscopic Tenodesis Versus Tenotomy for Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials and Cohort Studies
title_fullStr Clinical Outcomes of Arthroscopic Tenodesis Versus Tenotomy for Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials and Cohort Studies
title_full_unstemmed Clinical Outcomes of Arthroscopic Tenodesis Versus Tenotomy for Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials and Cohort Studies
title_short Clinical Outcomes of Arthroscopic Tenodesis Versus Tenotomy for Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials and Cohort Studies
title_sort clinical outcomes of arthroscopic tenodesis versus tenotomy for long head of the biceps tendon lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials and cohort studies
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8071980/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33997057
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967121993805
work_keys_str_mv AT liuhongzhi clinicaloutcomesofarthroscopictenodesisversustenotomyforlongheadofthebicepstendonlesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedclinicaltrialsandcohortstudies
AT songxinqiu clinicaloutcomesofarthroscopictenodesisversustenotomyforlongheadofthebicepstendonlesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedclinicaltrialsandcohortstudies
AT liupei clinicaloutcomesofarthroscopictenodesisversustenotomyforlongheadofthebicepstendonlesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedclinicaltrialsandcohortstudies
AT yuhuachen clinicaloutcomesofarthroscopictenodesisversustenotomyforlongheadofthebicepstendonlesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedclinicaltrialsandcohortstudies
AT zhangqidong clinicaloutcomesofarthroscopictenodesisversustenotomyforlongheadofthebicepstendonlesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedclinicaltrialsandcohortstudies
AT guowanshou clinicaloutcomesofarthroscopictenodesisversustenotomyforlongheadofthebicepstendonlesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedclinicaltrialsandcohortstudies