Abstract
Context:
A comparison of clinical outcomes after long head of biceps (LHB) tenotomy or tenodesis performed concurrently with rotator cuff repair (RCR) is of interest to physicians and patients.
Objective:
A systematic review of clinical outcome studies examining LHB tenotomy or tenodesis performed concurrently with RCR. Secondarily, perform a meta-analysis of data from comparative studies.
Data Sources:
MEDLINE (1946 to week 30 of 2013) and EMBASE (1980 to week 30 of 2013).
Study Selection:
Levels 1 through 4 studies reporting clinical outcomes of concurrent RCR and LHB tenotomy or tenodesis with minimum 1-year follow-up.
Study Design:
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Level of Evidence:
Level 4.
Data Extraction:
Two independent reviewers identified eligible studies and applied the exclusion criteria. Clinical outcome data, including functional outcome score(s), biceps deformity and cramping, and patient satisfaction, were extracted. Clinical outcome data from included studies were pooled (weighted according to study size) and reported. A meta-analysis was performed only on outcomes extracted from comparative studies (α = 0.05).
Results:
Twelve studies (N = 565 patients; mean age, 61.3 years; 46.3% men) were included. Of these, 6 (N = 263) included RCR and LHB tenotomy and 9 (N = 302) included RCR and LHB tenodesis. A meta-analysis was performed on 3 comparative studies (levels 1 and 2), demonstrating that the postoperative Constant score at a mean follow-up of 25.5 months was significantly greater after tenodesis (92.8 [tenodesis] vs 90.6 [tenotomy],
Conclusion:
Although the postoperative Constant score and rate of biceps deformity favor LHB tenodesis statistically, the clinical significance appears negligible.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
