Background: The preferred surgical technique to manage biceps-superior labral pathology is often debated, and rates of revision and persistence of pain vary widely according to surgical technique and patient characteristics.
Purpose: To evaluate the clinical and functional outcomes of patients undergoing revision subpectoral tenodesis after failed primary tenodesis or tenotomy of the long head of the biceps.
Study design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4.
Methods: All patients undergoing revision biceps management by the senior surgeon between 2006 and 2016 and with a minimum 24-month follow-up were retrospectively identified. Patients being treated with concomitant rotator cuff repair or capsular release were excluded. Patient characteristic variables were recorded. Patient-reported outcomes including the functional score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), visual analog scale (VAS), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons were obtained, and range of motion, strength, and complications were quantified.
Results: In total, 25 patients with revision biceps tenodesis were identified at a mean follow-up of 76.5 ± 31.5 months. The average age was 44.4 ± 14.3 years, and the surgical indications included failure of index suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (56%), subpectoral biceps tenodesis (36%), and patient dissatisfaction after tenotomy (8%). There was a significant improvement in the VAS score (P < .001), SANE (P = .001), SST (P = .035), functional score (P < .001), and forward elevation (P = .028), whereas postoperative strength (P = .440), abduction (P = .100), and external rotation (P = .745) improvement failed to achieve statistical significance after revision surgery. There was no difference in postoperative outcome measures between modes of failures, concomitant procedures, and sex. Twenty-two (88%) patients reported high satisfaction and stated they would have this revision surgery again. The overall complication rate was 48%, with half of these reporting pain of >3 on a scale of 10 and 4% of patients requiring additional surgeries.
Conclusion: The current study demonstrates high patient satisfaction (88%) and significant improvement in functional outcomes with revision biceps tenodesis, a mini-open subpectoral technique, after previous failed tenodesis or tenotomy. Although this may be an effective strategy to address failed prior biceps surgery, the potential complication of persistent pain must be emphasized. Patients should be counseled on the high complication rate (48%), with persistent pain being the most common complaint.
Keywords: biceps tenodesis; revision; subpectoral; tenodesis failure.