Open Subpectoral Tenodesis for Isolated Traumatic Long Head of Biceps Tendon Rupture Provides Excellent Functional Outcomes in Active Male Patients

被引:0
|
作者
Waugh, Christopher A. [1 ]
Havenhand, Tom [2 ]
Jain, Neil [3 ]
机构
[1] Pennine Acute NHS Fdn Trust, Orthopaed, Manchester, England
[2] Pennine Acute NHS Fdn Trust, Orthopaed & Trauma, Manchester, England
[3] Pennine Acute Hosp NHS Trust, Trauma & Orthopaed, Manchester, England
关键词
bicep pain; bicep tendon; tenodesis; biceps tenodesis; long head of biceps tendon; INJURIES;
D O I
10.7759/cureus.31553
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: For many years the long head of biceps tendon (LHBT) rupture has been described and is commonly identified by weakness, cramping, and the so-called "Popeye" sign. Traditionally, this was treated non-operatively, likely reflecting patient factors and the technical difficulty in reattaching a degenerative and shortened tendon. In contrast, traumatic distal biceps rupture is now commonly repaired despite historically being managed non-operatively. The advent of a convenient and reproducible surgical technique led to an increase in the rate of fixation, thereby improving the cramping and weakness associated with non -operative treatment. Given recent surgical advances within this field, many techniques are now present for LHBT pathology. We describe results from a cohort of patients suffering traumatic LHBT rupture who sought a surgical solution to improve their symptoms.Methods: Over four years, 18 male patients underwent surgical intervention for isolated traumatic LHBT rupture. The technique used involved an open subpectoral tenodesis with fixation of the LHBT into the bicipital groove. Postoperative immobilization using a sling was recommended for six weeks prior to a progressive rehabilitation program. Patients were assessed with pre-and postoperative visual analog scores (VAS) for pain and American Shoulder and Elbow Society (ASES) scores.Results: The mean patient age at the time of surgery was 49 years (range: 26-65 years). The mean time to surgery was nine weeks (range: 2-24 weeks). All patients showed an improvement following surgery with a mean pre-op ASES score of 33 (range: 10-60) compared to a post-op score of 92.6 (range: 85-100). All patients were able to return to work and sport, with all but one returning to the same functional demand level of work. The mean pre-op pain VAS was 6.3 (out of 10) compared to 0.2 post-op. All patients had a requirement for analgesia pre-operatively and none had postoperatively. No surgical complications were observed. No correlation was observed between the time to surgery and the outcome.Discussion: LHBT rupture is often treated non-operatively as few studies within the literature describe the surgical technique and outcomes from surgical intervention. When treated non-operatively, patients complain of pain, cramping, and cosmetic deformity known as the "Popeye" sign. Following a traumatic rupture of the LHBT, we have demonstrated excellent outcomes using a standard approach and common fixation technique that has the potential to improve the functional outcome for symptomatic patients.Conclusion: Open subpectoral biceps tenodesis is associated with excellent outcomes in symptomatic patients following isolated LHBT rupture.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 45 条
  • [21] Patient-specific mini-open subpectoral long head of the biceps tenodesis with anatomic tensioning: A surgical technique
    Boubekri, Amir M.
    Scheidt, Michael
    Anderson, Joshua
    Garbis, Nickolas G.
    Salazar, Dane H.
    SHOULDER & ELBOW, 2025, 17 (01) : 57 - 62
  • [22] Biceps tenodesis for long head of the biceps after auto-rupture or failed surgical tenotomy: results in an active population
    Anthony, Shawn G.
    McCormick, Frank
    Gross, Daniel J.
    Golijanin, Petar
    Provencher, Matthew T.
    JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2015, 24 (02) : E36 - E40
  • [23] Subpectoral tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon with an interference screw and a cortical button. Clinical and cosmetic results after 1 year
    Nolte, P. -C.
    Pister, N.
    Holz, F.
    Egenolf, M.
    Chatterjee, T.
    ORTHOPADE, 2017, 46 (10): : 864 - 871
  • [24] All-Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Versus Open Subpectoral Tenodesis of the Long Head of the Biceps Brachii Without the Use of Interference Screws
    Green, Jamison M.
    Getelman, Mark H.
    Snyder, Stephen J.
    Burns, Joseph P.
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2017, 33 (01): : 19 - 25
  • [25] Technical Note: Subpektorale Tenodese der langen Bizepssehne in Mini-open-TechnikTechnical note: subpectoral tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon using a mini-open technique
    Maximilian Hinz
    Jonas Pogorzelski
    Andreas B. Imhoff
    Sebastian Siebenlist
    Arthroskopie, 2021, 34 : 467 - 471
  • [26] Arthroscopic suprapectoral levs. Open subpectoral biceps tendon tenodesis with medium-term long follow-up time
    Babasiz, Tamara
    Geyer, Stephanie
    OBERE EXTREMITAET-SCHULTER-ELLENBOGEN-HAND-UPPER EXTREMITY-SHOULDER ELBOW HAND, 2023, 18 (03): : 207 - 209
  • [27] Rupture of the long head biceps tendon treated with tenodesis to the coracoid process. Results at more than 30 years
    Stefano Gumina
    Stefano Carbone
    Dario Perugia
    Lamberto Perugia
    Franco Postacchini
    International Orthopaedics, 2011, 35 : 713 - 716
  • [28] Rupture of the long head biceps tendon treated with tenodesis to the coracoid process. Results at more than 30 years
    Gumina, Stefano
    Carbone, Stefano
    Perugia, Dario
    Perugia, Lamberto
    Postacchini, Franco
    INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS, 2011, 35 (05) : 713 - 716
  • [29] Proximal coracobrachialis tendon rupture, subscapularis tendon rupture, and medial dislocation of the long head of the biceps tendon in an adult after traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation
    Saltzman, Bryan M.
    Harris, Joshua D.
    Forsythe, Brian
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SHOULDER SURGERY, 2015, 9 (02): : 52 - 55
  • [30] Arthroscopic tenodesis or tenotomy of the long head of the biceps tendon in preselected patients. Does it make a difference?
    Kerschbaum, M.
    Maziak, N.
    Scheuermann, M.
    Scheibel, M.
    ORTHOPADE, 2017, 46 (03): : 215 - 221