Biceps tenodesis versus tenotomy in isolated LHB lesions: a prospective randomized clinical trial
- 138 Downloads
Currently there exists no clear evidence concerning the surgical treatment of LHB lesions with either tenotomy or tenodesis. The aim of the study is therefore to evaluate elbow flexion and forearm supination force as well as the biceps muscle distalization according to both techniques in isolated LHB lesions.
Consecutive patients aged 40–70 years with shoulder arthroscopies for isolated SLAP or biceps pulley lesions were prospectively randomized to arthroscopic suprapectoral intraosseous LHB tenodesis or tenotomy. Pre-, 6 and 12 months postoperatively, the SST, ASES, Constant–Murley and LHB scores were recorded. The elbow flexion force was measured in 10°/90° flexion, the supination force in neutral/pronation position. In addition, the maximum upper-arm circumference and its position relative to the radial epicondyle of the humerus were evaluated preoperatively and in follow-up.
20/22 patients (mean age 52.0 ± 8.5; range 36–63 years, 11 male) completed the follow-up. 9/20 were treated with LHB tenodesis (mean age 51.5 ± 9.5; range 37–63 years, 7 male) and 11/20 with tenotomy (mean age 52.8 ± 8.0; range 36–62 years, 4 male). The force measurements and scores showed no significant difference after 12 months. Tenodesis achieved a significant increase in force 6 months postoperatively compared to preoperatively. One tenodesis patient and three tenotomy patients showed a postoperative popeye-sign deformity.
This prospective randomized study comparing LHB tenodesis and tenotomy in isolated LHB lesions has shown no significant difference in elbow flexion and forearm supination force and clinical scores after 12 months. After LHB tenotomy, there was a non-significant trend for a higher rate of popeye-sign deformities of the upper arm and biceps muscle cramps.
KeywordsBiceps SLAP lesion Biceps pulley lesion Tenodesis Tenotomy Thrower shoulder
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no competing interests. The senior author receives royalties by Arthrex, (Freiham, Germany), Smith & Nephew (Hamburg, Germany) and Lima (Hamburg, Germany) which have no influences on this study.
Research involving human and animal participants
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The local ethics committee approved this study (Registration Number 4647R).
Written consent was given by all participants.
- 1.Angst F, Schwyzer HK, Aeschlimann A, Simmen BR, Goldhahn J (2011) Measures of adult shoulder function: Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (DASH) and its short version (QuickDASH), Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Society standardized shoulder assessment form, Constant (Murley) Score (CS), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), Shoulder Disability Questionnaire (SDQ), and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). Arthritis Care Res 63 (Suppl 11):S174–S188Google Scholar
- 19.Nordin M, Frankel V (2001) Biomechanics of the elbow. Basic biomechanics of the musculoskeletal system. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 318–339Google Scholar