Cargando…

Failure rates and clinical outcomes after treatment for long-head biceps brachii tendon pathology: a comparison of three treatment types

HYPOTHESIS/BACKGROUND: Treatment options for the biceps brachii tendon include tenotomy, arthroscopic tenodesis, and open tenodesis. Few studies to date have compared all treatment options in the context of a rotator cuff repair. METHODS: A retrospective review of 100 patients who underwent arthrosc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hughes, Jonathan D., Gibbs, Christopher M., Drummond, Mauricio, Vaswani, Ravi, Ayinon, Caroline, Fongod, Edna, Godshaw, Brian M., Popchak, Adam, Lesniak, Bryson P., Lin, Albert
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8245991/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34223407
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jseint.2021.04.011
_version_ 1783716219416739840
author Hughes, Jonathan D.
Gibbs, Christopher M.
Drummond, Mauricio
Vaswani, Ravi
Ayinon, Caroline
Fongod, Edna
Godshaw, Brian M.
Popchak, Adam
Lesniak, Bryson P.
Lin, Albert
author_facet Hughes, Jonathan D.
Gibbs, Christopher M.
Drummond, Mauricio
Vaswani, Ravi
Ayinon, Caroline
Fongod, Edna
Godshaw, Brian M.
Popchak, Adam
Lesniak, Bryson P.
Lin, Albert
author_sort Hughes, Jonathan D.
collection PubMed
description HYPOTHESIS/BACKGROUND: Treatment options for the biceps brachii tendon include tenotomy, arthroscopic tenodesis, and open tenodesis. Few studies to date have compared all treatment options in the context of a rotator cuff repair. METHODS: A retrospective review of 100 patients who underwent arthroscopic supraspinatus repair between 2013 and 2018 with a minimum of one-year follow-up was performed. Patients were separated into the following 4 groups: (1) 57 had isolated supraspinatus repair with no biceps tendon surgery (SSP); (2) 16 had supraspinatus repair and biceps tenotomy; (3) 18 had supraspinatus repair and arthroscopic biceps tenodesis; (4) 9 had supraspinatus repair and an open biceps tenodesis (SSP + OT). The primary outcome was operative time. The secondary outcomes were cost analysis, complications, patient-reported outcome measures, range of motion, and strength testing. RESULTS: The operative time for the SSP + OT group was significantly longer than that of the SSP group (P < .05) but was not significantly longer than that of the other groups. The cost for the SSP group was significantly less than the cost for the SSP + OT and supraspinatus repair and arthroscopic biceps tenodesis groups (P < .05 for both), whereas the cost for the supraspinatus repair and biceps tenotomy group was significantly less than the cost for the SSP + OT group (P < .05). There were no significant differences between groups for complications, all patient-reported outcome measues, all range of motion, and all strength parameters. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Operative time is the longest in open biceps tenodesis and is significantly longer than that of isolated supraspinatus repair. No significant differences in operative times or costs were identified in patients undergoing arthroscopic vs. open biceps tenodesis. All patients, irrespective of the type of biceps tendon procedure, had excellent clinical and functional outcomes at least one year after surgery. There was no difference in clinical or functional outcomes, or complications, among the 4 groups.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8245991
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82459912021-07-02 Failure rates and clinical outcomes after treatment for long-head biceps brachii tendon pathology: a comparison of three treatment types Hughes, Jonathan D. Gibbs, Christopher M. Drummond, Mauricio Vaswani, Ravi Ayinon, Caroline Fongod, Edna Godshaw, Brian M. Popchak, Adam Lesniak, Bryson P. Lin, Albert JSES Int Shoulder HYPOTHESIS/BACKGROUND: Treatment options for the biceps brachii tendon include tenotomy, arthroscopic tenodesis, and open tenodesis. Few studies to date have compared all treatment options in the context of a rotator cuff repair. METHODS: A retrospective review of 100 patients who underwent arthroscopic supraspinatus repair between 2013 and 2018 with a minimum of one-year follow-up was performed. Patients were separated into the following 4 groups: (1) 57 had isolated supraspinatus repair with no biceps tendon surgery (SSP); (2) 16 had supraspinatus repair and biceps tenotomy; (3) 18 had supraspinatus repair and arthroscopic biceps tenodesis; (4) 9 had supraspinatus repair and an open biceps tenodesis (SSP + OT). The primary outcome was operative time. The secondary outcomes were cost analysis, complications, patient-reported outcome measures, range of motion, and strength testing. RESULTS: The operative time for the SSP + OT group was significantly longer than that of the SSP group (P < .05) but was not significantly longer than that of the other groups. The cost for the SSP group was significantly less than the cost for the SSP + OT and supraspinatus repair and arthroscopic biceps tenodesis groups (P < .05 for both), whereas the cost for the supraspinatus repair and biceps tenotomy group was significantly less than the cost for the SSP + OT group (P < .05). There were no significant differences between groups for complications, all patient-reported outcome measues, all range of motion, and all strength parameters. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Operative time is the longest in open biceps tenodesis and is significantly longer than that of isolated supraspinatus repair. No significant differences in operative times or costs were identified in patients undergoing arthroscopic vs. open biceps tenodesis. All patients, irrespective of the type of biceps tendon procedure, had excellent clinical and functional outcomes at least one year after surgery. There was no difference in clinical or functional outcomes, or complications, among the 4 groups. Elsevier 2021-05-10 /pmc/articles/PMC8245991/ /pubmed/34223407 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jseint.2021.04.011 Text en © 2021 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Shoulder
Hughes, Jonathan D.
Gibbs, Christopher M.
Drummond, Mauricio
Vaswani, Ravi
Ayinon, Caroline
Fongod, Edna
Godshaw, Brian M.
Popchak, Adam
Lesniak, Bryson P.
Lin, Albert
Failure rates and clinical outcomes after treatment for long-head biceps brachii tendon pathology: a comparison of three treatment types
title Failure rates and clinical outcomes after treatment for long-head biceps brachii tendon pathology: a comparison of three treatment types
title_full Failure rates and clinical outcomes after treatment for long-head biceps brachii tendon pathology: a comparison of three treatment types
title_fullStr Failure rates and clinical outcomes after treatment for long-head biceps brachii tendon pathology: a comparison of three treatment types
title_full_unstemmed Failure rates and clinical outcomes after treatment for long-head biceps brachii tendon pathology: a comparison of three treatment types
title_short Failure rates and clinical outcomes after treatment for long-head biceps brachii tendon pathology: a comparison of three treatment types
title_sort failure rates and clinical outcomes after treatment for long-head biceps brachii tendon pathology: a comparison of three treatment types
topic Shoulder
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8245991/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34223407
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jseint.2021.04.011
work_keys_str_mv AT hughesjonathand failureratesandclinicaloutcomesaftertreatmentforlongheadbicepsbrachiitendonpathologyacomparisonofthreetreatmenttypes
AT gibbschristopherm failureratesandclinicaloutcomesaftertreatmentforlongheadbicepsbrachiitendonpathologyacomparisonofthreetreatmenttypes
AT drummondmauricio failureratesandclinicaloutcomesaftertreatmentforlongheadbicepsbrachiitendonpathologyacomparisonofthreetreatmenttypes
AT vaswaniravi failureratesandclinicaloutcomesaftertreatmentforlongheadbicepsbrachiitendonpathologyacomparisonofthreetreatmenttypes
AT ayinoncaroline failureratesandclinicaloutcomesaftertreatmentforlongheadbicepsbrachiitendonpathologyacomparisonofthreetreatmenttypes
AT fongodedna failureratesandclinicaloutcomesaftertreatmentforlongheadbicepsbrachiitendonpathologyacomparisonofthreetreatmenttypes
AT godshawbrianm failureratesandclinicaloutcomesaftertreatmentforlongheadbicepsbrachiitendonpathologyacomparisonofthreetreatmenttypes
AT popchakadam failureratesandclinicaloutcomesaftertreatmentforlongheadbicepsbrachiitendonpathologyacomparisonofthreetreatmenttypes
AT lesniakbrysonp failureratesandclinicaloutcomesaftertreatmentforlongheadbicepsbrachiitendonpathologyacomparisonofthreetreatmenttypes
AT linalbert failureratesandclinicaloutcomesaftertreatmentforlongheadbicepsbrachiitendonpathologyacomparisonofthreetreatmenttypes