Skip to main content
Sports Health logoLink to Sports Health
. 2015 Jul;7(4):303–307. doi: 10.1177/1941738114539627

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Comparing Clinical Outcomes After Concurrent Rotator Cuff Repair and Long Head Biceps Tenodesis or Tenotomy

Timothy Leroux , Jaskarndip Chahal †,‡,*, David Wasserstein †,§, Nikhil N Verma , Anthony A Romeo
PMCID: PMC4481674  PMID: 26137174

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], P < 0.01); however, this difference was less than the reported minimal clinically important difference of 10.4 points. Similarly, the rate of biceps deformity was significantly less after tenodesis (15.5% [tenotomy] vs 3.9% [tenodesis], P < 0.01); however, most patients were not bothered by it. There were no significant differences in the rate of biceps cramping or patient satisfaction.

Conclusion:

Although the postoperative Constant score and rate of biceps deformity favor LHB tenodesis statistically, the clinical significance appears negligible.

Keywords: biceps tenodesis, biceps tenotomy, rotator cuff repair, meta-analysis, systematic review


Pathology of the long head of the biceps (LHB) includes tendinitis, partial tears, subluxation, and/or dislocation. Depending on the severity of the pathology, surgical management of these lesions may be indicated, including debridement, tenotomy, or tenodesis.20 There is, however, ongoing controversy regarding which surgical technique—specifically, LHB tenotomy or tenodesis—results in the best patient outcomes.20 In fact, 2 systematic reviews8,24 have compared clinical data between patients undergoing LHB tenotomy or tenodesis and concluded that clinical outcomes were similar (proportion of excellent/good outcomes, 77% tenotomy vs 74% tenodesis24) and that there is a higher incidence of biceps muscle deformity (“popeye” deformity)20 after tenotomy (proportion of deformity, 43% tenotomy vs 8% tenodesis24; 41% tenotomy vs 25% tenodesis8). A significant limitation of these systematic reviews, however, is the comparison of low-quality data and the inclusion of heterogeneous patient populations that vary with respect to demographics, concomitant shoulder pathology, and concurrent shoulder procedures. Ultimately, interpretation and generalizability of these findings is limited.

Pathology of the LHB tendon is most commonly encountered in the setting of a rotator cuff tear.20 In the present study, we sought to determine which clinical differences might exist between LHB tenotomy and LHB tenodesis when performed concurrently with rotator cuff repair (RCR), the results of which we believe would assist in treatment selection. Specifically, we summarize the available literature on this topic through a systematic review and perform a meta-analysis of clinical outcome data from comparative studies. We hypothesize that there are no differences in patient outcomes between the 2 procedures.

Methods

Literature Search

Two individuals (TL and JC) independently performed a computerized search of the electronic databases MEDLINE (1946 to week 30 of 2013) and EMBASE (1980 to week 30 of 2013) using the subject title “biceps AND (tenotomy OR tenodesis)” and identified 335 unique studies. A title screen looking for studies that met the inclusion criteria identified 35 relevant studies. Each abstract was then thoroughly reviewed, and 12 studies2,4-7,9-12,16,19,27 met the exclusion criteria (below) and were included in this systematic review. Of these 12 studies, 3 studies4,12,27 directly compared both techniques, and only data from these studies was used in the meta-analysis. The references of all included studies were manually cross-referenced for completeness, and full articles were reviewed to further verify appropriateness for inclusion and level of evidence (LOE).21,26 Disagreements were resolved by discussion with the senior author (AAR).

Exclusion criteria consisted of (a) a heterogeneous patient population, (b) patient age less than 16 years, (c) less than 10 patients, (d) less than 1-year follow-up, (e) cadaver or animal studies, and (f) case reports, biomechanical studies, or technique articles that did not report clinical outcome data.

It is important to note that given the limitations in classifying rotator cuff tears and determining repairability,13,15,25 any partial- or full-thickness rotator cuff tear deemed repairable by the respective study investigator(s) was included. We also did not stratify according to concomitant procedures—specifically, subacromial decompression and distal clavicle excision—as evidence suggests that these procedures do not influence clinical outcomes in the context of RCR.1

Data Extraction

Two independent reviewers (TL, JC) extracted data from each relevant study and grouped it according to the LHB procedure (tenotomy or tenodesis). Data included study characteristics (study type, patient number, and duration of follow-up), patient demographics (age, sex, and arm dominance), procedure characteristics (rotator cuff pathology, LHB pathology, surgical details, and concomitant procedures), and clinical outcomes (reported at maximum follow-up for each study). Clinical outcomes included postoperative functional outcome score(s), biceps deformity (“popeye” deformity20) and cramping, and patient satisfaction.

Data Analysis

Data were pooled for each demographic and outcome parameter according to sample size, and frequency-weighted means were reported. A formal meta-analysis was conducted only for clinical outcome data from comparative studies using Review Manager 5.1 (Cochrane Collaboration). For the latter analysis, results for continuous or categorical outcomes were reported as a mean difference or an odds ratio, respectively, with 95% confidence intervals. A fixed-effects model was used for all analyses, as the observed heterogeneity (I2) was <50%. For all statistical tests, α was set to 0.05.

Results

Study Characteristics

Of the 12 studies included in the systematic review, 6 studies4,5,7,11,12,27 reported outcomes after RCR and LHB tenotomy, and 9 studies2,4,6,9,10,12,16,19,27 reported outcomes after RCR and LHB tenodesis (Table 1). Study design varied (4 randomized controlled trials [RCTs],4,5,7,27 2 prospective cohort studies [PCSs],11,12 and 6 retrospective cohort studies2,6,9,10,16,19). Similarly, level of evidence varied (3 level 1 studies,4,7,27 3 level 2 studies,5,11,12 and 6 level 4 studies2,6,9,10,16,19) (Table 1). There were 3 comparative cohort studies4,12,27 included in the meta-analysis, of which 2 were RCTs4,27 and 1 was a PCS.12

Table 1.

General study characteristics

Study LOE LHB Procedure Patient No. Male Patients, % Mean Patient Age, y Mean Follow-up, mo FOM
Franceschi et al7 I Tenotomy 27 55.6 64.7 62.4 UCLA
Kim et al11 II Tenotomy 20 45.0 63.3 24.0 UCLA
ASES
SST
Dezaly et al5 II Tenotomy 68 44.1 67.5 12.0 Constant
Koh et al12 II Tenotomy 41 22.0 66.0 27.9 ASES
Tenodesis 43 37.2 65.0 27.1 Constant
De Carli et al4 I Tenotomy 30 NR 56.9 23.0 Constant
Tenodesis 35 NR 56.3 25.0 SST
Zhang et al27 I Tenotomy 77 46.8 61.0 25.0 Constant
Tenodesis 74 47.3 61.0 25.0 VAS
Checchia et al2 IV Tenodesis 15 60.0 62.0 32.4 UCLA
Franceschi et al7 IV Tenodesis 22 50.0 59.2 47.3 UCLA
Nho et al19 IV Tenodesis 13 84.6 54.7 34.6 ASES
SST
VAS
Ji et al9 IV Tenodesis 39 38.5 56.2 16.0 UCLA
ASES
SST
VAS
Kim et al10 IV Tenodesis 20 60.0 56.0 32.0 ASES Constant
VAS
Lu et al16 IV Tenodesis 41 46.3 57.7 12.0 UCLA
Constant
SST
VAS

ASES, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score; Constant, Constant-Murley score; DASH, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score; FOM, functional outcome measures; LHB, long head of the biceps tendon; LOE, level of evidence; NR, not reported; repairable RCT, repairable rotator cuff tear (as determined by study investigators); SST, Simple Shoulder Test score; UCLA, University of California Los Angeles score; VAS, visual analog scale.

Patient Demographics

Those patients who underwent LHB tenotomy were slightly older (63.5 vs 59.3 years), more likely to be female patients (proportion, 57.5% vs 50.4%), and had a greater proportion of procedures performed in the dominant arm (83.0% vs 69.7%) (Table 2).

Table 2.

Patient demographics by long head of biceps (LHB) procedure

LHB Procedure Patient No. Mean Patient Age, y Sex, % male Dominant Arm, %
Tenodesis 302 59.3 49.6 69.7
Tenotomy 263 63.5 42.5 83.0
Overall 565 61.3 46.3 73.7

Procedure Characteristics

Across studies, there was variation in rotator cuff tear size, involvement, and classification (Appendix 1, available at http://sph.sagepub.com/content/suppl); however, all rotator cuff tears underwent repair at the discretion of the investigators. Overall, 9 studies2,4-7,11,16,19,27 included full-thickness rotator cuff tears, 2 studies10,12 included partial- and/or full-thickness rotator cuff tears, and 1 study9 included only partial rotator cuff tears.

RCR and LHB Tenodesis

There was wide variation across all 9 studies with respect to LHB tendon pathology, tenodesis technique, tenodesis fixation, RCR technique, and concomitant procedures (Appendix 1).

RCR and LHB Tenotomy

There was variation across all 6 studies with respect to LHB pathology, RCR technique, and concomitant procedures (Appendix 1).

Clinical Outcomes

Clinical outcomes of the included studies are available in Appendix 2 (available at http://sph.sagepub.com/content/suppl).

Discussion

A meta-analysis of cohort studies comparing clinical outcomes after LHB tenodesis or tenotomy in the setting of an RCR revealed that both postoperative Constant scores and the rate of biceps deformity were statistically better among patients who underwent LHB tenodesis. On the other hand, the statistical differences in the Constant score and rate of deformity may not bear clinical significance, and there were no statistical differences in the rate of postoperative biceps cramping and patient satisfaction between either of the techniques.

Prior to this study, 2 systematic reviews8,24 had compared outcomes between LHB tenodesis and tenotomy. As compared with LHB tenodesis, both reviews8,24 found a higher rate of cosmetic deformity after LHB tenotomy (43% vs 8%24 and 41% tenotomy vs 25% tenodesis8); however, clinical outcomes and complications were otherwise similar. A notable limitation of both reviews, however, is the inclusion of studies with considerably different patient populations, including demographics, primary pathology, and concurrent operative procedures. Ultimately, this limits the generalizability of these findings to specific patient populations. For this reason, we sought to summarize clinical outcomes pertaining to a specific patient population—the most common—and statistically analyze data from only higher quality comparative cohort studies.

Deformity of the biceps muscle can follow an LHB procedure. In this systematic review, the rate of deformity was greater after tenotomy as compared with tenodesis (23.1% vs 5.2%). Similarly, the meta-analysis revealed a statistically higher rate of deformity after tenotomy as compared with tenodesis (15.5% vs 3.9%, P < 0.01).

An important consideration with respect to biceps deformity is patient symptoms (cramping) and satisfaction. Although we found a statistically higher rate of deformity in patients who underwent tenotomy, almost all of these patients were not bothered by the appearance.4,7,11,12,27 Moreover, we did not find a statistically significant difference in the rate of biceps cramping or patient satisfaction between tenotomy and tenodesis.

Patient function is also an important consideration after an LHB procedure. In our systematic review, a number of different functional outcome scores were reported; however, variably so. In fact, this heterogeneity is reflected in our observation that only 1 of the functional outcome scores, the Constant score, had been uniformly reported across all 3 comparative cohort studies.4,12,27 Interestingly, we found a significant difference in the postoperative Constant scores favoring tenodesis; however, the clinical relevance of this finding is limited as the reported minimal clinically important difference in the Constant score among patients undergoing rotator cuff surgery is 10.414 (our difference was 1.2). As such, there does not appear to be a functional difference between patients undergoing LHB tenotomy or tenodesis in the setting of an RCR, an observation that is consistent with past systematic reviews.8,24

One notable observation of this systematic review was the disproportionate number of studies that performed a proximal, intra-articular tenodesis (8 studies2,4,6,9,10,12,16,27 of 9 studies). This is interesting given the present variation and controversy pertaining to LHB tenodesis technique and the commonly held belief that proximal tenodesis increases the potential for postoperative tenosynovitis within the biceps sheath.20 Post hoc we reviewed the reported outcomes after LHB tenodesis and RCR, and across the 5 studies that reported residual bicipital groove pain,2,6,9,10,19 the rate was very low (1/109, 0.9%). As such, the potential for residual bicipital groove pain appears to be low and should not deter surgeons from performing proximal tenodesis.

There are a number of limitations to this study. First, lower quality evidence (level 4) was included, which increases the potential for selection bias. Second, the outcomes reported by each study varied, making direct study comparisons difficult.

Conclusion

There is a statistically significant difference in both postoperative Constant score and the rate of biceps deformity favoring LHB tenodesis; however, the clinical significance of these findings appears to be negligible. Moreover, there was not a statistically significant difference in the rate of biceps cramping or patient satisfaction.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary material
Appendix_1.pdf (129.8KB, pdf)

Supplementary Material

Supplementary material
Appendix_2.pdf (89.6KB, pdf)

Supplementary Material

Supplementary material
Appendix_3.pdf (77.3KB, pdf)

Footnotes

The following authors declared potential conflicts of interest: Timothy Leroux, MD, MEd, received an OTA Resident Research Grant. Nikhil N. Verma, MD, is a board member, and paid consultant and receives royalties from Smith & Nephew; has stock/stock options in Omeros; and receives fellowship and research support from Arthrex, Smith & Nephew, Ossur, and Linvatec. Anthony A. Romeo, MD, is a paid consultant and receives royalties from Arthrex.

References

  • 1. Chahal J, Mall N, MacDonald PB, et al. The role of subacromial decompression in patients undergoing arthroscopic repair of full-thickness tears of the rotator cuff: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arthroscopy. 2012;28:720-727. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Checchia SL, Doneux PS, Miyazaki AN, et al. Biceps tenodesis associated with arthroscopic repair of rotator cuff tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14:138-144. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;(214):160-164. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. De Carli A, Vadalà A, Zanzotto E, et al. Reparable rotator cuff tears with concomitant long-head biceps lesions: tenotomy or tenotomy/tenodesis? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20:2553-2558. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Dezaly C, Sirveaux F, Philippe R, et al. Arthroscopic treatment of rotator cuff tear in the over-60s: repair is preferable to isolated acromioplasty-tenotomy in the short term. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2011;97(6 suppl):S125-S130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Franceschi F, Longo UG, Ruzzini L, Papalia R, Rizzello G, Denaro V. To detach the long head of the biceps tendon after tenodesis or not: outcome analysis at the 4-year follow-up of two different techniques. Int Orthop. 2007;31:537-545. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Franceschi F, Longo UG, Ruzzini L, Rizzello G, Maffulli N, Denaro V. No advantages in repairing a type II superior labrum anterior and posterior (SLAP) lesion when associated with rotator cuff repair in patients over age 50: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36:247-253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Hsu AR, Ghodadra NS, Provencher MT, Lewis PB, Bach BR. Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: a review of clinical outcomes and biomechanical results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20:326-332. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Ji JH, Shafi M, Jeong JJ, et al. Transtendon arthroscopic repair of high grade partial-thickness articular surface tears of the rotator cuff with biceps tendon augmentation: technical note and preliminary results. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012;132:335-342. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Kim DY, Yoo YS, Lee SS, et al. Arthroscopic percutaneous repair of anterosuperior rotator cuff tear including biceps long head: a 2-year follow-up. Clin Orthop Surg. 2012;4:284-292. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Kim SJ, Lee IS, Kim SH, Woo CM, Chun YM. Arthroscopic repair of concomitant type II SLAP lesions in large to massive rotator cuff tears: comparison with biceps tenotomy. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40:2786-2793. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Koh KH, Ahn JH, Kim SM, Yoo JC. Treatment of biceps tendon lesions in the setting of rotator cuff tears: prospective cohort study of tenotomy versus tenodesis. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38:1584-1590. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Kuhn JE, Dunn WR, Ma B, et al. Interobserver agreement in the classification of rotator cuff tears. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35:437-441. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Kukkonen J, Kauko T, Vahlberg T, Joukainen A, Aärimaa V. Investigating minimal clinically important difference for Constant score in patients undergoing rotator cuff surgery. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22:1650-1655. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Lippe J, Spang JT, Leger RR, Arciero RA, Mazzocca AD, Shea KP. Inter-rater agreement of the Goutallier, Patte, and Warner classification scores using preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in patients with rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2012;28:154-159. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Lu Y, Zhu YM, Jiang CY. Clinical follow-up study of combined tenodesis for long head of biceps tendon lesion with massive rotator cuff tear [in Chinese]. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2011;91:1591-1594. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Matsen FA, Ziegler DW, DeBartolo SE. Patient self-assessment of health status and function in glenohumeral degenerative joint disease. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1995;4:345-351. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Michener LA, McClure PW, Sennett BJ. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, patient self-report section: reliability, validity, and responsiveness. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11:587-594. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Nho SJ, Frank RM, Reiff SN, Verma NN, Romeo AA. Arthroscopic repair of anterosuperior rotator cuff tears combined with open biceps tenodesis. Arthroscopy. 2010;26:1667-1674. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Nho SJ, Strauss EJ, Lenart BA, et al. Long head of the biceps tendinopathy: diagnosis and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2010;18:645-656. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Obremskey WT, Pappas N, Attallah-Wasif E, Tornetta P, Bhandari M. Level of evidence in orthopaedic journals. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:2632-2638. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Ohnhaus EE, Adler R. Methodological problems in the measurement of pain: a comparison between the verbal rating scale and the visual analogue scale. Pain. 1975;1:379-384. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Richards RR, An KN, Bigliani LU, et al. A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1994;3:347-352. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Slenker NR, Lawson K, Ciccotti MG, Dodson CC, Cohen SB. Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: clinical outcomes. Arthroscopy. 2012;28:576-582. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Spencer EE, Dunn WR, Wright RW, et al. Interobserver agreement in the classification of rotator cuff tears using magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36:99-103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Wright JG. A practical guide to assigning levels of evidence. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:1128-1130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Zhang Q, Zhou J, Ge H, Cheng B. Tenotomy or tenodesis for long head biceps lesions in shoulders with reparable rotator cuff tears: a prospective randomised trial [published online July 5, 2013]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 10.1007/s00167-013-2587-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary material
Appendix_1.pdf (129.8KB, pdf)
Supplementary material
Appendix_2.pdf (89.6KB, pdf)
Supplementary material
Appendix_3.pdf (77.3KB, pdf)

Articles from Sports Health are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES