PMID- 37359975 OWN - NLM STAT- PubMed-not-MEDLINE LR - 20230701 IS - 2325-9671 (Print) IS - 2325-9671 (Electronic) IS - 2325-9671 (Linking) VI - 11 IP - 6 DP - 2023 Jun TI - Outcomes of Biceps Tenodesis Variations With Concomitant Rotator Cuff Repair: A Multicenter Database Analysis. PG - 23259671231180173 LID - 10.1177/23259671231180173 [doi] LID - 23259671231180173 AB - BACKGROUND: Studies to date comparing biceps tenodesis methods in the setting of concomitant rotator cuff repair (RCR) have demonstrated relatively equivalent pain and functional outcomes. PURPOSE: To compare biceps tenodesis constructs, locations, and techniques in patients who underwent RCR using a large multicenter database. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A global outcome database was queried for patients with medium- and large-sized tears who underwent biceps tenodesis with RCR between 2015 and 2021. Patients >/=18 years of age with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were included. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, visual analog scale for pain, and Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) scores were compared at 1 and 2 years of follow-up based on construct (anchor, screw, or suture), location (subpectoral, suprapectoral, or top of groove), and technique (inlay or onlay). Nonparametric hypothesis testing was used to compare continuous outcomes at each time point. The proportion of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at the 1- and 2-year follow-ups were compared between groups using chi-square tests. RESULTS: A total of 1903 unique shoulder entries were analyzed. Improvement in VR-12 Mental score favored anchor and suture fixations at 1 year of follow-up (P = .042) and the onlay tenodesis technique at 2 years of follow-up (P = .029). No additional tenodesis comparisons demonstrated statistical significance. The proportion of patients with improvement exceeding the MCID did not differ based on tenodesis methods for any outcome score assessed at the 1- or 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: Biceps tenodesis with concomitant RCR led to improved outcomes regardless of tenodesis fixation construct, location, or technique. A clear optimal tenodesis method with RCR remains to be determined. Surgeon preference and experience with various tenodesis methods as well as patient clinical presentation should continue to guide surgical decision-making. CI - (c) The Author(s) 2023. FAU - Hagan, David P AU - Hagan DP AD - Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. FAU - Hao, Kevin A AU - Hao KA AD - College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. FAU - King, Joseph J AU - King JJ AD - Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. FAU - Srinivasan, Ramesh C AU - Srinivasan RC AD - Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. FAU - Wright, Thomas W AU - Wright TW AD - Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. FAU - Moser, Michael W AU - Moser MW AD - Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. FAU - Farmer, Kevin W AU - Farmer KW AD - Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. FAU - Wright, Jonathan O AU - Wright JO AD - Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. FAU - Pazik, Marissa AU - Pazik M AD - Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. FAU - Roach, Ryan P AU - Roach RP AD - Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. LA - eng PT - Journal Article DEP - 20230621 PL - United States TA - Orthop J Sports Med JT - Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine JID - 101620522 PMC - PMC10288396 OTO - NOTNLM OT - anchor OT - inlay OT - onlay OT - screw OT - shoulder OT - subpectoral OT - suprapectoral OT - techniques COIS- One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: J.J.K. has received consulting fees from Exactech and LinkBio. R.C.S. has received education payments from Medinc of Texas, consulting fees and nonconsulting fees from Acumed, and hospitality payments from Exactech and Integra LifeSciences. T.W.W. has received consulting fees and royalties from Exactech. M.W.M. has received education payments from Fortis Surgical. K.W.F. has received education payments from Arthrex and CCG Medical; consulting fees from Exactech, Pacira Therapeutics and Arthrex; nonconsulting fees from Arthrex, Baudex, CCG Medical, and Arthrosurface; and honoraria from Baudex. J.O.W. has received education payments from Pinnacle and hospitality payments from Acumed, Stryker, and Zimmer Biomet. R.P.R. has received grant support from Arthrex and education payments from Arthrex and Smith & Nephew. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto. EDAT- 2023/06/26 19:07 MHDA- 2023/06/26 19:08 PMCR- 2023/06/21 CRDT- 2023/06/26 12:30 PHST- 2023/02/02 00:00 [received] PHST- 2023/03/09 00:00 [accepted] PHST- 2023/06/26 19:08 [medline] PHST- 2023/06/26 19:07 [pubmed] PHST- 2023/06/26 12:30 [entrez] PHST- 2023/06/21 00:00 [pmc-release] AID - 10.1177_23259671231180173 [pii] AID - 10.1177/23259671231180173 [doi] PST - epublish SO - Orthop J Sports Med. 2023 Jun 21;11(6):23259671231180173. doi: 10.1177/23259671231180173. eCollection 2023 Jun.