4.4 Article

Biceps Lesion Associated With Rotator Cuff Tears: Open Subpectoral and Arthroscopic Intracuff Tenodesis

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/2325967116645311

关键词

shoulder; biceps tendon; tenodesis; subpectoral tenodesis; soft tissue tenodesis; intracuff tenodesis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Various tenodesis methods are being used for long head of the biceps tendon lesions. However, there is no consensus on the most appropriate surgical method. Hypothesis: There are significant differences in incidence of cosmetic deformity and persistent bicipital pain between open subpectoral and arthroscopic intracuff tenodesis groups. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: This study included 72 patients who underwent biceps tenodesis and rotator cuff repair between January 2009 and May 2014 and who were followed for at least 1 year. Open subpectoral tenodesis was performed in 39 patients (group A), and arthroscopic intracuff tenodesis was performed in 33 patients (group B). Results: In group A, the mean visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain during motion and mean University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and Constant scores significantly improved from 4.6, 18.6, and 64.5 preoperatively to 1.9, 30.5, and 86.5 at last follow-up, respectively (P < .001 for all). In group B, these scores significantly improved from 5.1, 17.6, and 62.9 preoperatively to 1.8, 31.5, and 85.9 at last follow-up, respectively (P < .001 for all). Popeye deformity was noted in 2 (5.2%) patients from group A and 5 (15.6%) patients from group B (P = .231). Additionally, persistent bicipital tenderness was noted in 1 (2.6%) patient from group A and 8 (24.2%) patients from group B (P = .012). Conclusion: Both open subpectoral tenodesis and arthroscopic intracuff tenodesis show good clinical outcomes for long head of the biceps tendon lesions. However, open subpectoral tenodesis may be more appropriate, considering the low incidence of Popeye deformity and tenderness.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据