Recent literature has demonstrated that conventional arthroscopic techniques do not adequately visualise areas of predilection of pathology of the long head of biceps (LHB) tendon and are associated with a 30–50% rate of missed diagnoses. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, effectiveness and ease of performing biceps tenoscopy as a novel strategy for reducing the rate of missed diagnoses. Five forequarter amputation cadaver specimens were studied. The pressure in the anterior compartment was measured before and after surgical evaluation. Diagnostic glenohumeral arthroscopy was performed and the biceps tendon was tagged to mark the maximum length visualised by pulling the tendon into the joint. Biceps tenoscopy was performed using 3 different techniques (1. Flexible video-endoscopy, 2. Standard arthroscopy via Neviaser portal. 3. Standard arthroscope via antero-superior portal with retrograde instrumentation). Each was assessed for safety, ease of the procedure and whether the full length of the extra-articular part of the LHB tendon could be visualised. The t-test was used to compare the length of the LHB tendon visualised at standard glenohumeral arthroscopy vs that visualised at biceps tenoscopy. An open dissection was performed after the arthroscopic procedures to evaluate for an iatrogenic injury to local structures. Biceps tenoscopy allowed visualisation to the musculotendinous junction in all cases. The mean length of the tendon visualised was therefore significantly greater at biceps tenoscopy (104 mm) than at standard glenohumeral arthroscopy (33 mm) (mean difference 71 mm, p<0.0001). Biceps tenoscopy was safe with regards to compartment syndrome and there was no difference between pre- and post-operative pressure measurements (mean difference 0 mmHg, p=1). No iatrogenic injuries were identified at open dissection. Biceps tenoscopy allows excellent visualisation of the entire length of the LHB tendon and therefore has the potential to reduce the rate of missed diagnoses. This study did not demonstrate any risk of iatrogenic injury to important local structures or any risk of compartment syndrome. Clinical evaluation is required to further validate this technique

The majority of studies reporting sensitivity and specificity data for imaging modalities and physical examination tests for long head of biceps (LHB) tendon pathology use arthroscopy as the gold standard. However, there is little published data to validate this as an appropriate benchmark. The aim of this study was to determine the maximum length of the LHB tendon that can be seen at glenohumeral arthroscopy and whether it allows adequate visualisation of common sites of pathology. Seven female cadaveric specimens were studied. Mean age was 74 years (range 44–96 years). Each specimen underwent arthroscopy in lateral decubitus (LD) and beach chair (BC) positions. The LBH-tendon was tagged with a suture placed with a spinal needle marking the intra-articular length and the maximum excursions achieved using a hook and a grasper in both LD and BC positions. T-tests were used to compare data. The mean intra-articular and extra-articular lengths of the tendon were 23.9 mm and 82.3 mm respectively. The mean length of tendon that could be visualised by pulling it into the joint with a hook was significantly less than with a grasper (LD: hook 29.9 mm, grasper 33.9 mm, mean difference 4 mm, p=0.0032. BC: hook 32.7 mm, grasper 37.6 mm, mean difference 4.9 mm, p=0.0001). Using the BC position allowed visualisation of a significantly greater length than the LD position when using either a hook (mean difference 2.86 mm, p=0.0327) or a grasper (mean difference 3.7 mm, p=0.0077). The mean length of the extra-articular part of the tendon visualised using a hook was 6 mm in LD and 8.9 mm in BC. The maximum length of the extra-articular portion visualised using this technique was 14 mm (17%). Pulling the tendon into the joint with a hook does not allow adequate visualisation of common distal sites of pathology in either LD or BC. Although the BC position allows a significantly greater proportion of the tendon to be visualised this represents a numerically small value and is not likely to be clinically significant. The use of a grasper also allowed greater excursion but results in iatrogenic tendon injury which precludes its use. The reported incidence of pathology in Denard zone C (distal to subscapularis) is 80% and in our study it was not possible to evaluate this zone even by using a grasper or maximum manual force to increase excursion. This is consistent with the extremely high rate of missed diagnoses reported in the literature. Surgeons should be aware that the technique of pulling the LHB-tendon into the joint is inadequate for visualising distal pathology and results in a high rate of missed diagnoses. Furthermore, efforts to achieve greater excursion by “optimum” limb positioning intra-operatively do not confer an important clinical advantage and are probably unnecessary

The functional importance of the long head of biceps tendon remains controversial, but it is well accepted as an important source of anterior shoulder pain. Both biceps tenotomy and tenodesis have well-documented results in the native shoulder. Management of the long head of biceps tendon during shoulder arthroplasty remains controversial. The existing literature supports surgical treatment of the biceps during shoulder arthroplasty. Walch et al. reported the largest series in multicenter study of over eight hundred shoulder arthroplasty patients with or without biceps tenodesis. The authors found more reproducible pain relief with biceps tenodesis and no difference in range of motion. Similarly, Soliman et al. reported on a prospective review of 37 patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty for fracture randomly assigned to biceps tenodesis vs. no treatment. The authors found a statistically significant improvement in Constant score and shoulder pain with biceps tenodesis. If left untreated during shoulder arthroplasty, the intact biceps tendon may be a source of anterior shoulder pain requiring revision surgery. Tuckman et al. reported excellent pain relief after biceps tenotomy or tenodesis for biceps-related pain after previous shoulder arthroplasty. The decision to perform a biceps tenotomy versus a tenodesis during shoulder arthroplasty also remains controversial. Tenotomy may increase the risk of cosmetic pop-eye deformity and muscle cramping or fatigue over tenodesis. Therefore, routine long head of biceps soft tissue tenodesis is recommended during shoulder arthroplasty as it safe, reproducible, cost-effective, associated with improved outcome scores, and minimises the risk of cosmetic deformity and pain associated with biceps tenotomy

Total shoulder arthroplasty is becoming increasingly common. A biceps tenodesis or tenotomy has become a routine part of the operation. There are several advantages to a tenodesis or tenotomy. First, the long head of the biceps tendon is routinely pathologic. One study has shown that there are differences in gene expression and mechanical properties in the long head of the biceps tendon in the setting of glenohumeral joint arthritis. Clinically, we often see inflammation, tearing, adhesions, or other pathology. Second, it is largely accepted that the long head of the biceps tendon has minimal function at the shoulder. The biceps muscle primarily functions at the elbow. Therefore, there is little downside to performing a tenodesis if there is a chance of it generating pain after surgery. Another major reason to perform a tenodesis or a tenotomy is that the technique of total shoulder arthroplasty requires a subscapularis takedown or lesser tuberosity osteotomy. The ligaments and tendon associated with the subscapularis contribute to the stability of the biceps tendon and after subscapularis takedown, it is unlikely that the tendon would remain reduced in the groove. In addition, it is part of a technique to incise and release the rotator interval, additionally creating scarring and/or instability associated with the biceps tendon. Given those reasons, this is a very common and reasonable routine part of the procedure of total shoulder arthroplasty

Management of the pathologic long-head biceps tendon remains controversial. Biceps tenotomy is a simple intervention but may result in visible deformity and subjective cramping. Comparatively, biceps tenodesis is technically challenging, and has increased operative times, and a more prolonged recovery. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of popeye deformity following biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis, identify predictors for developing a deformity, and compare subjective and objective outcomes between those that have one and those that do not. Data for this study were collected as part of a randomized clinical trial comparing tenodesis versus tenotomy in the treatment of lesions of the long head of biceps tendon. Patients 18 years of age or older with an arthroscopy confirmed biceps lesion were randomized to one of these two techniques. The primary outcome measure for this sub-study was the rate of a popeye deformity at 24-months post-operative as determined by an evaluator blinded to group allocation. Secondary outcomes were patient reported presence/absence of a popeye deformity, satisfaction with the appearance of their arm, as well as pain and cramping on a VAS. Isometric elbow flexion and supination strength were also measured. Interrater reliability (Cohen's kappa) was calculated between patient and evaluator on the presence of a deformity, and logistic regression was used to identify predictors of its occurrence. Linear regression was performed to identify if age, gender, or BMI were predictive of satisfaction in appearance if a deformity was present. Fifty-six participants were randomly assigned to each group of which 42 in the tenodesis group and 45 in the tenotomy group completed a 24-month follow-up. The incidence of popeye deformity was 9.5% (4/42) in the tenodesis group and 33% (15/45) in the tenotomy group (18 male, 1 female) with a relative risk of 3.5 (p=0.016). There was strong interrater agreement between evaluator and patient perceived deformity (kappa=0.636; p<0.001). Gender tended towards being a significant predictor of having a popeye with males having 6.6 greater odds (p=0.090). BMI also tended towards significance with lower BMI predictive of popeye deformity (OR 1.21; p=0.051). Age was not predictive (p=0.191). Mean (SD) satisfaction score regarding the appearance of their popeye deformity was 7.3 (2.6). Age was a significant predictor, with lower age associated with decreased satisfaction (F=14.951, adjusted r2=0.582, p=0.004), but there was no association with gender (p=0.083) or BMI (p=0.949). There were no differences in pain, cramping, or strength between those who had a popeye deformity and those who did not. The risk of developing a popeye deformity was 3.5 times higher after tenotomy compared to tenodesis. Male gender and lower BMI tended towards being predictive of having a deformity; however, those with a high BMI may have had popeye deformities that were not as visually apparent to an examiner as those with a lower BMI. Younger patients were significantly less satisfied with a deformity despite no difference in functional outcomes at 24 months. Thus, biceps tenodesis may be favored in younger patients with low BMI to mitigate the risk of an unsatisfactory popeye deformity

We know little regarding the long head of the biceps tendon's function but it is generally felt that it serves as a humeral head stabiliser by resisting superior migration during shoulder elevation. In total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) the long head tendon is most commonly tenodesed as some have reported post-operative pain generated from an intact long head tendon. How does tenotomy or tenodesis of the long head tendon after TSA effect superior translation of the humeral head? We do not know the answer to this or if this increased tension causes any increase in subscapularis tendon failure. This will be presented as a possible reason to not remove the long head tendon of the biceps during TSA

Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) are excellent surgical options for individuals with shoulder arthritis, providing good to excellent results in the vast majority of patients. Complications are rare, but can be devastating for both the patient and surgeon. An uncommon, but extremely problematic complication following shoulder arthroplasty is shoulder stiffness. While substantial literature discussing post-arthroplasty stiffness is available for other joints such as the hip, knee, and elbow, there is a paucity of research available discussing this complication in the shoulder. As noted in multiple reviews, diminished range of motion following TSA or RSA may be due to a number of factors, including pre-operative diagnosis of proximal humerus fracture, inadequate post-operative rehabilitation, implant-related factors such as malpositioning and/or inappropriate-sized implants, and heterotopic ossification. Often, pathology leading to post-arthroplasty stiffness involves scarring of the long head of the biceps tendon, rotator cuff impingement, as well as cuff tendonitis. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is also important to recognise, and may be difficult to diagnose, especially in cases of Propionibacterium acnes infections. Importantly, PJI may present with stiffness as well as instability, and thus a high index of suspicion with a low threshold to aspirate is necessary in these challenging patients. Treatment of patients with stiffness following arthroplasty is challenging, and may involve arthroscopic intervention with or without manipulation, as well as manipulation under anesthesia alone. This paper will discuss the etiology, work-up, and treatment of patients with shoulder stiffness following TSA and RSA

The diagnosis and treatment of disorders of the long head of the biceps tendon remains controversial. There is uncertainty as to the role of the long head of biceps and it can be difficult to determine whether the patient's pathology is coming from the biceps or other adjacent structures. In addition, the appropriate type of treatment remains controversial. We retrospectively reviewed the files of the senior author's experience in over 4000 arthroscopic shoulder procedures. We examined cases involving isolated biceps pathology, excluding those patients with rotator cuff tears and labral pathology, involving 92 biceps tenotomies and 103 biceps tenodeses. Our analysis supports the benefit of clinical examination over all types of radiological investigations. The benefits and technique of biceps tenodesis is described including surgical technique. Irritation by PLA interference screw is examined. A paradigm is put forward to help in diagnosis and management of these lesions. Long head of biceps pathology is a significant cause of shoulder pain in association with other shoulder problems and in isolation. Biceps tenodesis and tenotomy is an efficacious way of dealing with this pathology