Systematic Review of Biceps Tenodesis: Arthroscopic Versus Open.

PURPOSE

We present a systematic review of the recent literature regarding the use of arthroscopic and open methods of tenodesis for lesions of the long head of the biceps brachii and present an analysis of the subjective and objective outcomes after these 2 procedures.

METHODS

PubMed was carefully reviewed for suitable articles relating to biceps tenodesis, both open and arthroscopic. We included studies reporting on the clinical outcomes of these 2 procedures that were of Level I to IV evidence and were published in the English language. The primary clinical outcomes for each study were determined, normalized, and reported as the percentage of good or excellent results versus poor results based on the outcome scores and criteria laid out by the authors in each of the studies. The exclusion criteria included studies in which biceps tenodesis was performed in patients with concomitant rotator cuff repairs, nonhuman studies, and biomechanical studies.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies met our inclusion criteria. Among all studies, a total of 205 arthroscopic tenodesis procedures and a total of 271 open tenodesis procedures were performed. Among the 271 open tenodesis patients, 98% had a good or excellent outcome, with a poor outcome in 5 patients (2%). Among the 205 patients who underwent arthroscopic tenodesis, 98% had a good or excellent outcome, with a poor outcome in 5 patients (2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Both open and arthroscopic biceps tenodesis provided satisfactory outcomes in most patients, and there were no identifiable differences in this review.