Abstract
Introduction and Objective
There remains much debate regarding the optimal method for surgical management of patients with long head of biceps pathology. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of tenotomy versus tenodesis.
Materials and Methods
This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO (ref: CRD42020198658). Electronic databases searched included EMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tenotomy versus tenodesis were included. Risk of bias within studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias v2.0 tool and the Jadad score. The primary outcome included patient reported functional outcome measures pooled using standardized mean difference (SMD) and a random effects model. Secondary outcome measures included visual analogue scale (VAS), rate of cosmetic deformity (Popeye sign), range of motion, operative time, and elbow flexion strength.
Results
751 patients from 10 RCTs demonstrated (369 tenotomy vs 382 tenodesis) were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis of all PROMs data demonstrated comparable outcomes between tenotomy vs tenodesis (SMD 0.17 95% CI −0.02 to 0.36, p=0.09). Sensitivity analysis comparing RCTs involving patients with and without an intact rotator cuff did not change the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes including VAS, shoulder external rotation, and elbow flexion strength did not reveal any significant difference. Tenodesis resulted in a lower rate of Popeye deformity (OR 0.27 95% CI 0.16 to 0.45, p<0.00001).
Conclusions
Aside from a lower rate of cosmetic deformity, tenodesis yielded no measurable significant benefit to tenotomy for addressing pathology in the long head of biceps. This finding was irrespective of the whether the rotator cuff was intact.
