title: [Arthroscopic tenodesis or tenotomy of the long head of the biceps tendon in preselected patients : Does it make a difference?]
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Are there clinical, cosmetic and/or structural differences between tenotomy and tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHB) in patients selected according to commonly used indication criteria?
  
  
  METHODS
  A total of 85 patients were included in this study. An LHB tenodesis (LHB-TD) was performed in 49 patients and a tenotomy (LHB-TT) in 36 patients. In addition to a standardized examination, the age and gender adjusted Constant score (aCS), the LHB score and the subjective shoulder value (SSV) were assessed. The cosmetic result was evaluated by both patient and examiner. In all patients the elbow flexion and supination strength were measured and compared between sides and sonography of the affected shoulder was performed.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Both groups showed significant differences concerning age, body mass index (BMI) and requirements for shoulder function. The aCS and the LHB score showed good to excellent results without any significant differences between the groups and the SSV also did not reveal any significant differences between the two groups. In 34 patients of the LHB-TD group and 25 patients of the LHB-TT group a mild upper arm asymmetry could be detected (n. s.). Only three patients of the LHB-TD group and two patients of the LHB-TT group confirmed the presence of a subjective popeye deformity (n. s.). Both flexion and supination strength showed significantly better results for the LHB-TD group in comparison to the LHB-TT group. The LHB could not be sonographically detected in the bicipital groove in five patients of the LHB-TD group and in one patient of the LHB-TT group.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In patients preselected according to routinely used indication parameters (e.g. age, BMI and functional requirements of the shoulder) both LHB-TD and LHB-TT can achieve good to very good functional and cosmetic results with high patient satisfaction.
authors.affiliation: Centrum für Muskuloskeletale Chirurgie (CMSC), Campus-Virchow/Campus-Mitte, Charité-Unversitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburgerplatz 1, 13353, Berlin, Deutschland.
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Kerschbaum
authors.affiliation: Centrum für Muskuloskeletale Chirurgie (CMSC), Campus-Virchow/Campus-Mitte, Charité-Unversitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburgerplatz 1, 13353, Berlin, Deutschland.
authors.forename: N
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Maziak
authors.affiliation: Centrum für Muskuloskeletale Chirurgie (CMSC), Campus-Virchow/Campus-Mitte, Charité-Unversitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburgerplatz 1, 13353, Berlin, Deutschland.
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Scheuermann
authors.affiliation: Centrum für Muskuloskeletale Chirurgie (CMSC), Campus-Virchow/Campus-Mitte, Charité-Unversitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburgerplatz 1, 13353, Berlin, Deutschland. markus.scheibel@charite.de.
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Scheibel
mesh_terms: D001182:Arthroscopy / Q000379:methods*; D003131:Combined Modality Therapy / Q000379:methods; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D018579:Patient Selection; D000070636:Rotator Cuff Injuries / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*; D013710:Tendons / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*; D053656:Tenodesis / Q000379:methods*; D058971:Tenotomy / Q000379:methods*; D016896:Treatment Outcome
keywords: Cosmetic result; Function; Indication; Popeye deformity; Satisfaction