title: Open Versus Arthroscopic Biceps Tenodesis: A Comparison of Functional Outcomes.
abstract: The proximal aspect of the long head of the biceps brachii (LHB) is a frequent source of anterior shoulder pain. Multiple techniques for LHB tenodesis have been described. However, comparative outcomes are lacking. The present study aims to compare functional results, patient reported outcomes, complications, and clinical failures for patients undergoing open versus arthroscopic LHB tenodesis.
  
  
  
  All patients who underwent open or arthroscopic LHB tenodesis from 2009-2012 at a single institution were identified. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and operative variables of interest, including concomitant procedures, were recorded. Minimum 1-year follow-up was required for inclusion. Outcomes, including patient reported outcomes, physical exam findings, and complications were compared between open and arthroscopic LHB tenodesis patients.
  
  
  
  Overall, 45 patients (25 open, 20 arthroscopic) were available for analysis. In total, there was a single clinical failure in a patient who underwent arthroscopic LHB tenodesis. No other complications or failures were noted. Active shoulder forward elevation was increased in the open tenodesis group as compared to the arthroscopic tenodesis group (177.8 ± 9.3° vs. 171.3 ± 11.7°; p = 0.049). Otherwise, there was no difference in range of motion or strength. For both groups, both the SF-36 and ASES scores improved significantly from preoperative values.
  
  
  
  Both open and arthroscopic LHB tenodesis provide good to excellent outcomes with few complications. Given the recent increased utilization of LHB tenodesis, future studies should use randomization and prospective data collection in order to determine if discrete patient populations are better served by either open or arthroscopic LHB tenodesis techniques.
authors.affiliation: Department of Orthopedics & Rehabilitation University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics Iowa City, IA, USA.
authors.forename: Kyle R
authors.initials: KR
authors.lastname: Duchman
authors.affiliation: Department of Orthopedics & Rehabilitation University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics Iowa City, IA, USA.
authors.forename: David E
authors.initials: DE
authors.lastname: DeMik
authors.affiliation: Department of Orthopedics & Rehabilitation University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics Iowa City, IA, USA.
authors.forename: Bastian
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Uribe
authors.affiliation: Department of Orthopedics & Rehabilitation University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics Iowa City, IA, USA.
authors.forename: Brian R
authors.initials: BR
authors.lastname: Wolf
authors.affiliation: Department of Orthopedics & Rehabilitation University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics Iowa City, IA, USA.
authors.forename: Matthew
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Bollier
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001182:Arthroscopy / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D001863:Bone Screws; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D053580:Muscle Strength / Q000502:physiology*; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000209:etiology; D016059:Range of Motion, Articular / Q000502:physiology*; D020069:Shoulder Pain / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000601:surgery*; D053656:Tenodesis / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D016896:Treatment Outcome