Restoring the Anatomic Tension Relationship of the Long Head of the Biceps During Tenodesis

Long Head of the Biceps Subpectoral Tenodesis Anatomic vs. Traditional Tensioning Technique During Rotator Cuff Repair: A Randomized Prospective Trial

The goal of this clinical trial is to determine the clinical impact of restoring the anatomic-tension relationship of the long head of the biceps (LHB) when performing a biceps tenotomy and tenodesis. The main question it aims to answer is whether anatomic tensioning will improve functional outcome scores and decrease postoperative complications. The investigators hypothesize that through a standardized method of anatomically tensioning the LHB tendon during tenodesis, patient outcomes will improve. Researchers will compare these outcomes to a control group receiving the traditional tensioning technique. Participants will be randomized to either the anatomic tensioning treatment group or the traditional tensioning control group.

Study Overview

• Status: Completed
• Conditions: Rotator Cuff Injuries; Tendinosis; Biceps Tendon Disorder
• Intervention / Treatment: Procedure: Anatomic Long Head of Biceps Tensioning Technique; Procedure: Traditional Long Head of Biceps Tensioning Technique

Detailed Description

The long head of the biceps can be a source of anterior shoulder pain that is primarily due to inflammation or instability of the long head of the biceps (LHB) tendon . Patients that fail non-operative management become candidates for biceps tenotomy and tenodesis. Currently, there is no universal protocol or gold standard for how the LHB tendon is tensioned. At the investigators' institution, the LHB is tensioned based on individual surgeon feel for the correct tensioning. The purpose of this study is to conduct a randomized, single-blinded prospective study comparing patients with the current regimen of bicep tensioning vs. utilizing a standardized method of anatomically tensioning the LHB tendon. The primary aim of assessing change in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon (ASES) scores from baseline to post-surgery between the control and intervention groups will be assessed using a student's t-test. In addition, longitudinal mixed effects models will be used to estimate changes in ASES scores, over all time-points using a random effect for surgeon. Other relevant patient characteristics such as age, sex, and Charlson score will be included to explore the adjusted relationship of the intervention and outcomes over time. A secondary aim of this study is to collect specific measurements of the myotendinous junction of the LHB tendon to potentially establish if any characteristics predispose patients to developing pathology of the LHB tendon.

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Actual): 204
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

Study Locations

• United States
  • Illinois
    • Maywood, Illinois, United States, 60153
      • Loyola University Medical Center

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: Adult; Older Adult
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: No

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

• Patients at least 18 years of age undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery
• Operations that occur at Loyola University Medical Center (Maywood, IL), Loyola Ambulatory Surgery Center (Maywood, IL), or Gottlieb Memorial Hospital

Exclusion Criteria:

• Previous shoulder surgery involving the long head of the biceps tendon
• Younger than 18 years old
• Current pregnancy. As per standard protocol with all surgeries, a urine pregnancy test is performed prior to surgery. If positive, the surgery will be cancelled and the patient will be excluded from the research study.

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: Treatment
• Allocation: Randomized
• Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
• Masking: Single

Number of Arms

2

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Anatomic Long Head of Biceps Tensioning Technique; Patients that are randomized to the intervention group will undergo biceps tenodesis in a standardized, step-by-step protocol as outlined in a previously published and publicly available article.	Procedure: Anatomic Long Head of Biceps Tensioning Technique; The standard mini-open subpectoral approach will be made. The myotendinous junction of the long head of the biceps tendon and its location within the intertubercular groove will be marked using electrocautery. The surgeon will then turn to the glenohumeral joint and perform the biceps tenotomy.The long head of the biceps tendon will be retrieved.The tendon is tagged with a running, locking number 2 fiberwire suture at the mid substance of the myotendinous junction using the previously made electrocautery marks to set the tension. The tendon is shortened. The sutures from the biceps are passed through the Arthrex cortical button.The pectoralis major tendon is retracted and 2 centimeters proximal to the distal insertion a unicortical bone tunnel is drilled in the bicipital groove with a 3.2 millimeter drill.The wound is irrigated and the biceps button is threaded into this tunnel and then flipped.The suture is tensioned, securing the biceps against the groove
Active Comparator: Traditional Long Head of Biceps Tensioning Technique; The control group patient will undergo biceps tenotomy and tenodesis based on surgeon feel on appropriate tensioning of the tendon (Current practice). Of note, there is no universal method or gold standard on how the long head of the biceps should be tensioned during bicep tenodesis.	Procedure: Traditional Long Head of Biceps Tensioning Technique; Diagnostic arthroscopic shoulder scope will occur to assess the long head of the biceps for tendinopathy. Tenotomy will occur at the junction of the supraglenoid tubercle with arthroscopic scissors. Subsequent tensioning and tenodesis will be based on surgeon's preference

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Comparison of American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon (ASES) Score Between Treatment and Control Groups	The ASES form was created by the Society of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons to help standardize outcome measures by both combining a physician-rated and patient rated section. The total maximum score (and best outcome) is 100. Half of the score is weighted for pain and the other half for function. The final pain score is calculated by subtracting the visual analog scale from 10 and multiplying by 5. For the functional portion, each of the 10 separate questions are on a scale from 0 to 3. The functional portion total is then multiplied by 5/3 to make it a total of 50 points. In summary, 50 points come from the visual analog scale and the other 50 come from the functional portion, which equals a possible total of 100.	6 weeks
Comparison of American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon (ASES) Score Between Treatment and Control Groups	The ASES form was created by the Society of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons to help standardize outcome measures by both combining a physician-rated and patient rated section. The total maximum score (and best outcome) is 100. Half of the score is weighted for pain and the other half for function. The final pain score is calculated by subtracting the visual analog scale from 10 and multiplying by 5. For the functional portion, each of the 10 separate questions are on a scale from 0 to 3. The functional portion total is then multiplied by 5/3 to make it a total of 50 points. In summary, 50 points come from the visual analog scale and the other 50 come from the functional portion, which equals a possible total of 100.	3 months
Comparison of American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon (ASES) Score Between Treatment and Control Groups	The ASES form was created by the Society of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons to help standardize outcome measures by both combining a physician-rated and patient rated section. The total maximum score (and best outcome) is 100. Half of the score is weighted for pain and the other half for function. The final pain score is calculated by subtracting the visual analog scale from 10 and multiplying by 5. For the functional portion, each of the 10 separate questions are on a scale from 0 to 3. The functional portion total is then multiplied by 5/3 to make it a total of 50 points. In summary, 50 points come from the visual analog scale and the other 50 come from the functional portion, which equals a possible total of 100.	6 months
Comparison of American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon (ASES) Score Between Treatment and Control Groups	The ASES form was created by the Society of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons to help standardize outcome measures by both combining a physician-rated and patient rated section. The total maximum score (and best outcome) is 100. Half of the score is weighted for pain and the other half for function. The final pain score is calculated by subtracting the visual analog scale from 10 and multiplying by 5. For the functional portion, each of the 10 separate questions are on a scale from 0 to 3. The functional portion total is then multiplied by 5/3 to make it a total of 50 points. In summary, 50 points come from the visual analog scale and the other 50 come from the functional portion, which equals a possible total of 100.	1 year
Comparison of American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon (ASES) Score Between Treatment and Control Groups	The ASES form was created by the Society of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons to help standardize outcome measures by both combining a physician-rated and patient rated section. The total maximum score (and best outcome) is 100. Half of the score is weighted for pain and the other half for function. The final pain score is calculated by subtracting the visual analog scale from 10 and multiplying by 5. For the functional portion, each of the 10 separate questions are on a scale from 0 to 3. The functional portion total is then multiplied by 5/3 to make it a total of 50 points. In summary, 50 points come from the visual analog scale and the other 50 come from the functional portion, which equals a possible total of 100.	1.5 years

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Comparison of Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Pain Score Between Treatment and Control Groups	The pain VAS is a unidimensional measure of pain intensity, used to record patients' pain progression, or compare pain severity between patients with similar conditions. The score ranges from 0-10 with 0 being pain free and 10 being severe pain.	6 weeks
Comparison of Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Pain Score Between Treatment and Control Groups	The pain VAS is a unidimensional measure of pain intensity, used to record patients' pain progression, or compare pain severity between patients with similar conditions. The score ranges from 0-10 with 0 being pain free and 10 being severe pain.	3 months
Comparison of Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Pain Score Between Treatment and Control Groups	The pain VAS is a unidimensional measure of pain intensity, used to record patients' pain progression, or compare pain severity between patients with similar conditions. The score ranges from 0-10 with 0 being pain free and 10 being severe pain.	6 months
Comparison of Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Pain Score Between Treatment and Control Groups	The pain VAS is a unidimensional measure of pain intensity, used to record patients' pain progression, or compare pain severity between patients with similar conditions. The score ranges from 0-10 with 0 being pain free and 10 being severe pain.	1 year
Comparison of Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Pain Score Between Treatment and Control Groups	The pain VAS is a unidimensional measure of pain intensity, used to record patients' pain progression, or compare pain severity between patients with similar conditions. The score ranges from 0-10 with 0 being pain free and 10 being severe pain.	1.5 years
Comparison of Active Forward Flexion Between Treatment and Control Groups	Active forward flexion of the shoulder measured from 0 to 180 degrees	6 weeks
Comparison of Active Forward Flexion Between Treatment and Control Groups	Active forward flexion of the shoulder measured from 0 to 180 degrees	3 months
Comparison of Active Forward Flexion Between Treatment and Control Groups	Active forward flexion of the shoulder measured from 0 to 180 degrees	6 months
Comparison of Active Forward Flexion Between Treatment and Control Groups	Active forward flexion of the shoulder measured from 0 to 180 degrees	1 year
Comparison of Active External Rotation Between Treatment and Control Groups	Active external rotation of the shoulder measured from 0 to 90 degrees	6 weeks
Comparison of Active External Rotation Between Treatment and Control Groups	Active external rotation of the shoulder measured from 0 to 90 degrees	3 months
Comparison of Active External Rotation Between Treatment and Control Groups	Active external rotation of the shoulder measured from 0 to 90 degrees	6 months
Comparison of Active External Rotation Between Treatment and Control Groups	Active external rotation of the shoulder measured from 0 to 90 degrees	1 year

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: Loyola University

Publications and helpful links

General Publications

• Wolf RS, Zheng N, Weichel D. Long head biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: a cadaveric biomechanical analysis. Arthroscopy. 2005 Feb;21(2):182-5. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2004.10.014.
• David TS, Schildhorn JC. Arthroscopic suprapectoral tenodesis of the long head biceps: reproducing an anatomic length-tension relationship. Arthrosc Tech. 2012 Jul 21;1(1):e127-32. doi: 10.1016/j.eats.2012.05.004. Print 2012 Sep.
• Denard PJ, Dai X, Hanypsiak BT, Burkhart SS. Anatomy of the biceps tendon: implications for restoring physiological length-tension relation during biceps tenodesis with interference screw fixation. Arthroscopy. 2012 Oct;28(10):1352-8. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2012.04.143. Epub 2012 Aug 24.
• Hussain WM, Reddy D, Atanda A, Jones M, Schickendantz M, Terry MA. The longitudinal anatomy of the long head of the biceps tendon and implications on tenodesis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015 May;23(5):1518-1523. doi: 10.1007/s00167-014-2909-5. Epub 2014 Feb 27.
• Jarrett CD, McClelland WB Jr, Xerogeanes JW. Minimally invasive proximal biceps tenodesis: an anatomical study for optimal placement and safe surgical technique. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Apr;20(3):477-80. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2010.08.002. Epub 2010 Oct 12.
• Lafrance R, Madsen W, Yaseen Z, Giordano B, Maloney M, Voloshin I. Relevant anatomic landmarks and measurements for biceps tenodesis. Am J Sports Med. 2013 Jun;41(6):1395-9. doi: 10.1177/0363546513482297. Epub 2013 Apr 5.
• Tao MA, Calcei JG, Taylor SA. Biceps Tenodesis: Anatomic Tensioning. Arthrosc Tech. 2017 Jul 24;6(4):e1125-e1129. doi: 10.1016/j.eats.2017.03.033. eCollection 2017 Aug.

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): October 27, 2020
• Primary Completion (Actual): February 20, 2024
• Study Completion (Actual): February 20, 2024

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: August 22, 2024
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: August 23, 2024
• First Posted (Actual): August 26, 2024

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Estimated): November 20, 2024
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: September 18, 2024
• Last Verified: September 1, 2024

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Additional Relevant MeSH Terms: Shoulder Injuries; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Muscular Diseases; Wounds and Injuries; Rupture; Tendon Injuries; Rotator Cuff Injuries; Tendinopathy
• Other Study ID Numbers: 212671

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

• Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?: NO

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No