Comparison of clinical outcomes and return to sport between unicortical versus bicortical button fixation techniques for subpectoral biceps tenodesis.

PURPOSE: There is limited clinical outcome data comparing fixation methods for tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT), particularly button fixation. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, and return to sport (RTS) between patients undergoing LHBT with bicortical versus unicortical button technique. The authors hypothesized these fixation methods would be similar for all outcomes.

METHODS

Patients who underwent LHBT using unicortical or bicortical button fixation with minimum 2-year follow-up were identified. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) questionnaire and visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score. A sports activity survey was collected to assess baseline sport participation and ability to return to pre-injury activities. Continuous variables were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney-U test. Categorical variables were analyzed using Chi-squared tests. Multivariable logistic and linear regression were performed to determine predictors of RTS and time to RTS.

RESULTS

Sixty-four subjects (19 unicortical and 45 bicortical button fixation) were included (average follow-up 3.5 (range: 2.0-7.8) years). There were no significant differences found between button groups for VAS pain score (1.5 vs. 1.2; p = 0.876), VAS pain during sport score (1.6 vs. 1.1, p = 0.398), and ASES score (66 vs. 71; p = 0.294). There were no significant differences in rate of RTS (75.0 vs. 77.4%; p = 0.885) or average time to return to sport (11.7 ± 7.3 vs. 7.0 ± 4.0 months; p = 0.081) between groups.

CONCLUSION

There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes, pain, or return to sport between patients who underwent LHBT with unicortical or bicortical button fixation.