Surgical correction of the "popeye biceps" deformity: dual-window approach for combined subpectoral and deltopectoral access and proximal biceps tenodesis

"Popeye biceps" deformity represents the appearance of a distally retracted biceps muscle resulting from either a traumatic long biceps tendon (LBT) rupture or an iatrogenic LBT tenotomy. Cosmetic and functional problems associated with the deformity may necessitate surgical correction, and surgical exposure using multiple incisions is recommended. The technique presented here describes a novel mini-open approach using a single 1-in incision that provides access to 3 peripectoral anatomical zones. Preoperative sonographic localization of the ruptured and retracted LBT is used to guide incision placement, and facilitates intraoperative tendon retrieval via a limited incision and minimal dissection. Inferolateral retraction of the mini-incision window permits infrapectoral and subpectoral LBT mobilization and dissection. Deltopectoral access via superomedial retraction of the same skin window is used to expose the suprapectoral zone and is employed for LBT retrieval and proximal tenodesis. Technical tips for safe dissection via a mini-incision, and methods for biological LBT augmentation are discussed.     

Biceps tenodesis versus biceps tenotomy for biceps tendinitis without rotator cuff tears

Disorders of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHB) are a well-recognised cause of shoulder pain despite the function of the long head of the biceps remaining poorly understood. There has been a dramatic rise in the number of biceps tenodesis procedures being performed in the last decade. This may partly be attributed to concerns regarding residual cosmetic deformity and pain after biceps tenotomy though there is little evidence to suggest that functional outcomes of tenodesis are superior to biceps tenotomy. Current literature focuses on LHB disorders with concomitant rotator cuff tears. The aim of this review is to discuss the anatomy of the LHB, the pathogenesis of tendinopathy of the LHB, indications of biceps tenodesis and tenotomy and compare the current literature on the functional outcomes of these procedures for LHB disorders in the absence of rotator cuff tears.     

Clinical outcomes of revision biceps tenodesis

Purpose:

Biceps tenotomy and tenodesis are effective treatment options for biceps pathology, but outcomes of revision surgery are not known. This study examines the clinical outcomes of patients who have undergone a revision biceps tenodesis.

Materials and Methods:

A retrospective review of all patients since 2004 (N = 21) who had undergone a revision biceps tenodesis with greater than 6-month follow-up was completed. A follow-up survey was carried out, and the visual analog scale (VAS), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and University of California – Los Angeles (UCLA) scores were obtained, along with SF-12 Mental (MCS-12) and Physical Component Summaries (PCS-12).

Results:

Indications for revision surgery were continued pain (14) and ruptured biceps (7). Complete follow-up examinations were performed in 15 of 21 patients (71.4%). Average follow-up was 33.4 ± 23.5 months. The mean postoperative scores were 1.9 out of 10, VAS; 79 out of 100, SANE; 10.2 out of 12, SST; 83 out of 100, ASES; 29 out of 35, UCLA; 44, PCS- 12; and 47.1, MCS- 12. Five patients were considered failures with a UCLA score below 27. Seventeen of twenty-one patient underwent concomitant procedures. Complete preoperative and postoperative data were collected for 14 patients. All scores demonstrated highly significant improvement from preoperative levels (P < 0.005), except for the MCS-12. There was no statistically significant difference in the outcomes of revision due to rupture and revision due to persistent pain.

Conclusions:

The results suggest that revision subpectoral biceps tenodesis provides significant pain relief and improvement in functional outcomes at a mean follow-up of 33.4 months.

Level of Evidence:

Case Series, Level 4.     

Complications after subpectoral biceps tenodesis using a dual suture anchor technique

Purpose:

A variety of fixation techniques for subpectoral biceps tenodeses have been described including interference screw and suture anchor fixation. Biomechanical data suggests that dual suture anchor fixation has equivalent strength compared to interference screw fixation. The purpose of the study is to determine the early complication rate after subpectoral biceps tenodesis utilizing a dual suture anchor technique.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 103 open subpectoral biceps tenodeses were performed over a 3-year period using a dual suture anchor technique. There were 72 male and 31 female shoulders. The average age at the time of tenodesis was 45.5 years. 41 patients had a minimum of 6 months clinical follow-up (range, 6 to 45 months). The tenodesis was performed for biceps tendonitis, superior labral tears, biceps tendon subluxation, biceps tendon partial tears, and revisions of prior tenodeses.

Results:

There were a total of 7 complications (7%) in the entire group. There were 4 superficial wound infections (4%). There were 2 temporary nerve palsies (2%) resulting from the interscalene block. One patient had persistent numbness of the ear and a second patient had a temporary phrenic nerve palsy resulting in respiratory dysfunction and hospital admission. One patient developed a pulmonary embolism requiring hospital admission and anticoagulation. There were no hematomas, wound dehiscences, peripheral nerve injuries, or ruptures. In the sub-group of patients with a minimum of 6 months clinical follow-up, the only complication was a single wound infection treated with oral antibiotics.

Conclusions:

Subpectoral biceps tenodesis utilizing a dual suture anchor technique has a low early complication rate with no ruptures or deep infections. The complication rate is comparable to those previously reported for interference screw subpectoral tenodesis and should be considered as a reasonable alternative to interference screw fixation.

Level of Evidence:

Level IV-Retrospective Case Series     

Management of proximal biceps tendon pathology

The long head of the biceps tendon is widely recognized as an important pain generator, especially in anterior shoulder pain and dysfunction with athletes and working individuals. The purpose of this review is to provide a current understanding of the long head of the biceps tendon anatomy and its surrounding structures, function, and relevant clinical information such as evaluation, treatment options, and complications in hopes of helping orthopaedic surgeons counsel their patients. An understanding of the long head of the biceps tendon anatomy and its surrounding structures is helpful to determine normal function as well as pathologic injuries that stem proximally. The biceps-labral complex has been identified and broken down into different regions that can further enhance a physician’s knowledge of common anterior shoulder pain etiologies. Although various physical examination maneuvers exist meant to localize the anterior shoulder pain, the lack of specificity requires orthopaedic surgeons to rely on patient history, advanced imaging, and diagnostic injections in order to determine the patient’s next steps. Nonsurgical treatment options such as anti-inflammatory medications, physical therapy, and ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injections should be utilized before entertaining surgical treatment options. If surgery is needed, the three options include biceps tenotomy, biceps tenodesis, or superior labrum anterior to posterior repair. Specifically for biceps tenodesis, recent studies have analyzed open vs arthroscopic techniques, the ideal location of tenodesis with intra-articular, suprapectoral, subpectoral, extra-articular top of groove, and extra-articular bottom of groove approaches, and the best method of fixation using interference screws, suture anchors, or cortical buttons. Orthopaedic surgeons should be aware of the complications of each procedure and respond accordingly for each patient. Once treated, patients often have good to excellent clinical outcomes and low rates of complications.     

Managing the long head of the biceps tendon in TSA: A thorn in my side

The functional role of the long head of biceps in shoulder is controversial but it is well accepted as a pain generating structure. The long head of biceps can result in anterior shoulder pain after shoulder arthroplasty. Tenodesis of the long head of the biceps during shoulder arthroplasty is a safe and easy procedure, which minimizes the risk of postoperative “Popeye” deformity and anterior shoulder pain.     

Outcomes of tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon more than three months after rupture

AIM: To demonstrate that long head of the biceps tendon(LHBT) tenodesis is possible more than 3 mo after rupture. METHODS: From September 2009 to January 2012 we performed tenodesis of the LHBT in 11 individuals(average age 56.9 years, range 42 to 73) more than 3 mo after rupture. All patients were evaluated by Disabilites of the Arm Shoulder and Hand(DASH) and Mayo outcome scores at an average follow-up of 19.1 mo. We similarly evaluated 5 patients(average age 58.2 years, range 45 to 64) over the same time treated within 3 mo of rupture with an average follow-up of 22.5 mo.RESULTS: Tenodesis with an interference screw was possible in all patients more than 3 mo after rupture and 90% had good to excellent outcomes but two had recurrent rupture. All of those who had tenodesis less than 3 mo after rupture had good to excellent outcomes and none had recurrent rupture. No statistical difference was found for DASH and Mayo outcome scores between the two groups(P 0.05). CONCLUSION: Tenodesis of LHBT more than 3 mo following rupture had outcomes similar to tenodesis done within 3 mo of rupture but recurrent rupture occurred in 20%.