Display options
Cite
Meeks BD, Meeks NM, Froehle AW, et al. Patient Satisfaction After Biceps Tenotomy. Orthop J Sports Med. 2017;5(5):2325967117707737doi: 10.1177/2325967117707737.
Meeks, B. D., Meeks, N. M., Froehle, A. W., Wareing, E., & Bonner, K. F. (2017). Patient Satisfaction After Biceps Tenotomy. Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 5(5), 2325967117707737. https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967117707737
Meeks, Brett D, et al. "Patient Satisfaction After Biceps Tenotomy." Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine vol. 5,5 (2017): 2325967117707737. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967117707737
Meeks BD, Meeks NM, Froehle AW, Wareing E, Bonner KF. Patient Satisfaction After Biceps Tenotomy. Orthop J Sports Med. 2017 May 25;5(5):2325967117707737. doi: 10.1177/2325967117707737. eCollection 2017 May. PMID: 28596975; PMCID: PMC5448732.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Orthop J Sports Med. 2017 May 25;5(5):2325967117707737. doi: 10.1177/2325967117707737. eCollection 2017 May.

Patient Satisfaction After Biceps Tenotomy.

Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine

Brett D Meeks, Natalie M Meeks, Andrew W Froehle, Emily Wareing, Kevin F Bonner

Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio, USA.
  2. Kettering Medical Center, Kettering, Ohio, USA.
  3. Jordan-Young Institute, Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA.

PMID: 28596975 PMCID: PMC5448732 DOI: 10.1177/2325967117707737

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Biceps tenotomy and tenodesis are frequently performed for proximal biceps lesions; however, there continues to be debate as to which method is superior. This study examined patient-reported outcomes after biceps tenotomy.

HYPOTHESIS: Biceps tenotomy in the setting of concomitant shoulder pathology is a reasonable option with high satisfaction rates and a low incidence of pain and cramping in middle-aged to older individuals.

STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS: A total of 104 patients (mean age, 63.5 years; range, 40-81 years) were evaluated at the time of surgery and at a mean follow-up of 38.4 months (range, 22-57 months). Biceps tenotomy was performed as a component of more extensive shoulder surgery in all patients. Patient satisfaction, frequency of cramping and spasms, biceps pain, weakness, and cosmetic deformity were evaluated at over 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS: Ninety-one percent of patients were satisfied or very satisfied with their surgical outcome, and 95% would have their surgery again. Three patients who reported being unsatisfied or very unsatisfied had either advanced glenohumeral arthritis or an irreparable rotator cuff tear. Cosmetic deformity occurred in 13% of patients. Twenty percent reported spasms and cramping in their biceps, and 19% reported some biceps pain; however, frequency of spasms and cramping was typically once weekly, and biceps pain was reported as severe or very severe in only 2 patients. Subjective biceps weakness was reported in 17% of patients. Age had no effect on outcome measures, and female sex was associated with less limitation and greater satisfaction after tenotomy compared with men.

CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that patient-reported downsides to biceps tenotomy were usually mild and/or infrequent and did not affect patient satisfaction. We conclude that biceps tenotomy is a viable option that can lead to a high rate of patient satisfaction and outcomes in middle-aged to older individuals undergoing shoulder surgery with biceps pathology.

Keywords: biceps tendon; shoulder arthroscopy; tenodesis; tenotomy

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declared that they have no conflicts of interest in the authorship and publication of this contribution.

References

  1. Am J Sports Med. 2014 Nov;42(11):2583-90 - PubMed
  2. Am J Sports Med. 2011 Apr;39(4):857-65 - PubMed
  3. Sports Med Arthrosc. 2010 Sep;18(3):173-80 - PubMed
  4. Sports Health. 2015 Jul;7(4):303-7 - PubMed
  5. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Apr;89(4):747-57 - PubMed
  6. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012 Jan;21(1):61-5 - PubMed
  7. Am J Sports Med. 2013 Dec;41(12 ):2919-24 - PubMed
  8. Am J Sports Med. 2005 Feb;33(2):208-13 - PubMed
  9. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012 Oct 22;13:205 - PubMed
  10. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012 Dec;20(12 ):2553-8 - PubMed
  11. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Mar;20(2):326-32 - PubMed
  12. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2010 Jul;39(7):E61-3 - PubMed
  13. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001 May-Jun;10(3):247-9 - PubMed
  14. Am J Sports Med. 2013 Sep;41(9):2048-53 - PubMed
  15. Am J Sports Med. 2010 Aug;38(8):1584-90 - PubMed
  16. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008 Nov-Dec;17 (6):898-904 - PubMed
  17. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015 Feb;23 (2):464-9 - PubMed
  18. Musculoskelet Surg. 2012 May;96 Suppl 1:S47-52 - PubMed
  19. Arthroscopy. 2002 May-Jun;18(5):483-7 - PubMed
  20. Sports Med Arthrosc. 2008 Sep;16(3):180-6 - PubMed
  21. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005 May-Jun;14 (3):238-46 - PubMed
  22. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988 Mar;(228):233-9 - PubMed
  23. Orthop J Sports Med. 2015 Feb 12;3(2):2325967115570848 - PubMed
  24. Arthroscopy. 2012 Apr;28(4):576-82 - PubMed
  25. Am J Sports Med. 2011 Apr;39(4):783-9 - PubMed
  26. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Sep;20(6):e7-11 - PubMed
  27. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1999 Nov-Dec;8(6):644-54 - PubMed
  28. J Trauma. 2005 Jun;58(6):1189-93 - PubMed
  29. Arthroscopy. 2014 Sep;30(9):1075-84 - PubMed
  30. Am J Sports Med. 2009 Apr;37(4):828-33 - PubMed

Publication Types