Two-Year Outcomes of Non-Conservative Treatment of the Long Head of the Biceps Tendon in the Repair of Small Supraspinatus Tears: A Multicenter Prospective Study.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Aimery Sabelle, Benjamin Sallé, Christophe Charousset, Adrien Jacquot, François Gadéa, Jacques Guery, Thierry Joudet, Nicolas Bonnevialle, Xavier Ohl, Lionel Neyton, Nicolas Gasse, Ramy Samargandi, Johannes Barth, Maxime Antoni, Franck Dordain, David Gallinet, Julien Berhouet
{"title":"Two-Year Outcomes of Non-Conservative Treatment of the Long Head of the Biceps Tendon in the Repair of Small Supraspinatus Tears: A Multicenter Prospective Study.","authors":"Aimery Sabelle, Benjamin Sallé, Christophe Charousset, Adrien Jacquot, François Gadéa, Jacques Guery, Thierry Joudet, Nicolas Bonnevialle, Xavier Ohl, Lionel Neyton, Nicolas Gasse, Ramy Samargandi, Johannes Barth, Maxime Antoni, Franck Dordain, David Gallinet, Julien Berhouet","doi":"10.1016/j.otsr.2025.104451","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The management of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) is well established in case of massive, irreparable rotator cuff tears (RCTs). However, its treatment in the context of small RCTs, especially those involving the supraspinatus tendon remain controversial, with ongoing debate over whether tenotomy, tenodesis, or simple preservation is the most appropriate approach. This study hypothesized that a non-conservative treatment (either isolated tenotomy or tenodesis) would yield equivalent functional outcomes, regardless of the macroscopic intraoperative appearance of the biceps tendon.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In this prospective multicenter study, 210 patients underwent rotator cuff repair for a tear primarily affecting the supraspinatus tendon. A tenotomy or a tenodesis of the LHBT was systematically performed, regardless of its intraoperative appearance (normal or pathologic). Functional outcomes at two years (VAS, Constant score, SSV, ASES score) were collected and compared according to the macroscopic aspect of the tendon. To account for potential confounding factors, a 1:1 propensity score matching was performed. Outcomes were also compared between tenotomy and tenodesis groups. Cuff healing was assessed by ultrasound at the last follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At the two-year follow-up, after propensity-score matching, no statistically significant differences were found between groups in any of the tested score (Constant score, p =  0.96; VAS, p =  0.33; ASES score, p =  0.50). Before matching, functional scores were significantly better in patients who underwent tenotomy or tenodesis in combination with cuff repair when the LHBT appeared macroscopically normal during surgery: Constant score (87 ± 8 vs. 83 ± 11, p = 0.003), ASES score (91 ± 19 vs. 85 ± 22, p = 0.002), and SSV (95 ± 9 vs. 79 ± 31, p < 0.001). No statistically significant difference was found in Constant score improvement. Tenodesis was associated with better flexion strength, but no statistical differences were observed for other outcomes, including the Popeye deformity. At two years, cuff healing rates were similar between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>After controlling for confounding factors, the macroscopic appearance of the LHBT did not significantly influence clinical outcomes at two years after rotator cuff repair and tenotomy or tenodesis.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>III; Prospective non-randomized study.</p>","PeriodicalId":54664,"journal":{"name":"Orthopaedics & Traumatology-Surgery & Research","volume":" ","pages":"104451"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopaedics & Traumatology-Surgery & Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2025.104451","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The management of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) is well established in case of massive, irreparable rotator cuff tears (RCTs). However, its treatment in the context of small RCTs, especially those involving the supraspinatus tendon remain controversial, with ongoing debate over whether tenotomy, tenodesis, or simple preservation is the most appropriate approach. This study hypothesized that a non-conservative treatment (either isolated tenotomy or tenodesis) would yield equivalent functional outcomes, regardless of the macroscopic intraoperative appearance of the biceps tendon.

Materials and methods: In this prospective multicenter study, 210 patients underwent rotator cuff repair for a tear primarily affecting the supraspinatus tendon. A tenotomy or a tenodesis of the LHBT was systematically performed, regardless of its intraoperative appearance (normal or pathologic). Functional outcomes at two years (VAS, Constant score, SSV, ASES score) were collected and compared according to the macroscopic aspect of the tendon. To account for potential confounding factors, a 1:1 propensity score matching was performed. Outcomes were also compared between tenotomy and tenodesis groups. Cuff healing was assessed by ultrasound at the last follow-up.

Results: At the two-year follow-up, after propensity-score matching, no statistically significant differences were found between groups in any of the tested score (Constant score, p =  0.96; VAS, p =  0.33; ASES score, p =  0.50). Before matching, functional scores were significantly better in patients who underwent tenotomy or tenodesis in combination with cuff repair when the LHBT appeared macroscopically normal during surgery: Constant score (87 ± 8 vs. 83 ± 11, p = 0.003), ASES score (91 ± 19 vs. 85 ± 22, p = 0.002), and SSV (95 ± 9 vs. 79 ± 31, p < 0.001). No statistically significant difference was found in Constant score improvement. Tenodesis was associated with better flexion strength, but no statistical differences were observed for other outcomes, including the Popeye deformity. At two years, cuff healing rates were similar between the two groups.

Conclusion: After controlling for confounding factors, the macroscopic appearance of the LHBT did not significantly influence clinical outcomes at two years after rotator cuff repair and tenotomy or tenodesis.

Level of evidence: III; Prospective non-randomized study.

非保守治疗二头肌腱长头修复小冈上肌撕裂的两年结果:一项多中心前瞻性研究。
简介:二头肌肌腱长头(LHBT)的管理是很好的建立在大量,不可修复的肩袖撕裂(rct)的情况下。然而,在小型随机对照试验的背景下,特别是涉及冈上肌腱的治疗仍然存在争议,关于肌腱切断术、肌腱固定术或简单保留是最合适的方法的争论仍在继续。本研究假设,不论术中二头肌肌腱的宏观外观如何,非保守治疗(孤立肌腱切断术或肌腱固定术)都能产生相同的功能结果。材料和方法:在这项前瞻性多中心研究中,210例主要影响冈上肌腱撕裂的患者接受了肩袖修复术。无论其术中外观(正常或病理)如何,系统地对LHBT进行肌腱切断术或肌腱固定术。收集两组两年后的功能结果(VAS、Constant评分、SSV、as评分),并根据肌腱的宏观方面进行比较。为了解释潜在的混杂因素,进行了1:1的倾向评分匹配。还比较了肌腱切开术组和肌腱固定术组的结果。最后一次随访时用超声评估袖口愈合情况。结果:随访2年,倾向评分匹配后,各组间各项测试得分均无统计学差异(Constant score, p = 0.96; VAS, p = 0.33; as评分,p = 0.50)。配对前,当手术中LHBT在宏观上表现正常时,行肌腱切断术或肌腱固定术联合袖带修复的患者功能评分明显更好:恒定评分(87±8比83±11,p = 0.003), ASES评分(91±19比85±22,p = 0.002), SSV评分(95±9比79±31,p)。在控制混杂因素后,在肩袖修复和肌腱切断术或肌腱固定术后两年,LHBT的宏观外观对临床结果没有显著影响。证据等级:III;前瞻性非随机研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
26.10%
发文量
329
审稿时长
12.5 weeks
期刊介绍: Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research (OTSR) publishes original scientific work in English related to all domains of orthopaedics. Original articles, Reviews, Technical notes and Concise follow-up of a former OTSR study are published in English in electronic form only and indexed in the main international databases.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信