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.

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 pain (visual analogue scale VAS), rate of Popeye deformity, and operative time.

860 patients from 11 RCTs (426 tenotomy vs 434 tenodesis) were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis of all PROMs data demonstrated comparable outcomes between tenotomy vs tenodesis (SMD 0.14, 95% CI −0.04 to 0.32; p=0.13). Sensitivity analysis comparing RCTs involving patients with and without an intact rotator cuff did not change the primary outcome. There was no significant difference for pain (VAS). Tenodesis resulted in a lower rate of Popeye deformity (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.45, p < 0.00001). Tenotomy demonstrated a shorter operative time (MD 15.21, 95% CI 1.06 to 29.36, p < 0.00001).

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. A large multi-centre clinical effectiveness randomised controlled trial is needed to provide clarity in this area.

This study aims to compare the biomechanical properties of the “Double Lasso-Loop” suture anchor (DLSA) technique with the commonly performed interference screw (IS) technique in an ex vivo ovine model. Fourteen fresh sheep shoulder specimens were used in this study. Dissection was performed leaving only the biceps muscle attached to the humerus and proximal radius before sharply incised to simulate long head of biceps tendon (LHBT) tear. Repair of the LHBT tear was performed on all specimens using either DSLA or IS technique. Cyclical loading of 500 cycles followed by load to failure was performed on all specimens. Tendon displacement due to the cyclical loading at every 100 cycles as well as the maximum load at failure were recorded and analysed. Stiffness was also calculated from the load displacement graph during load to failure testing. No statistically significant difference in tendon displacement was observed from 200 to 500 cycles. Statistically significant higher stiffness was observed in IS when compared with DSLA (P = .005). Similarly, IS demonstrated significantly higher ultimate failure load as compared with DSLA (P = .001). Modes of failure observed for DSLA was mostly due to suture failure (7/8) and anchor pull-out (1/8) while IS resulted in mostly LHBT (4/6) or biceps (2/6) tears. DSLA failure load were compared with previous studies and similar results were noted. After cyclical loading, tendon displacement in DLSA technique was not significantly different from IS technique. Despite the higher failure loads associated with IS techniques in the present study, absolute peak load characteristics of DLSA were similar to previous studies. Hence, DLSA technique can be considered as a suitable alternative to IS fixation for biceps tenodesis