Concomitant Biceps Tenodesis Does Not Compromise Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair Outcomes.

PURPOSE: To compare outcomes of patients who underwent rotator cuff repair (RCR) with concomitant biceps tenodesis with those who underwent an isolated RCR.

METHODS

Exclusion criteria included previous ipsilateral shoulder surgery, irreparable rotator cuff tears, rotator cuff arthropathy, calcific tendinitis, adhesive capsulitis requiring a capsular release, or advanced osteoarthritis of the glenohumeral joint. Patients were indicated for biceps tenodesis if they had any degree of tendon tearing, moderate-to-severe tenosynovitis, instability, or a significant degenerative SLAP tear. Primary outcome measures included American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test, EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level visual analog scale, EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level, and a site-specific questionnaire, which focused on surgical expectations, satisfaction, and complications. Multivariate analysis of variance to analyze descriptive statistics and determine significant differences between the patient groups for subjective and objective outcome measures were performed.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences for pain/visual analog scale (0.34 ± 0.09 vs 0.47 ± 0.09, P = .31), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (96.69 ± 0.87 vs 94.44 ± 0.91, P = .07), and Simple Shoulder Test (11.42 ± 0.17 vs 10.95 ± 0.18, P = .06) between the RCR with concomitant biceps tenodesis and isolated RCR at a minimum of 2 years' postoperatively. This is despite the RCR with concomitant biceps tenodesis group having significantly larger rotator cuff tears (4.25 ± 0.30 cm2 vs 2.80 ± 0.32 cm2, P = .001) than the isolated RCR group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed that concomitant biceps tenodesis does not compromise outcomes when compared with an isolated RCR at 2-year follow-up, despite this group having larger rotator cuff tears.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective case study.