Clinical effectiveness of tenotomy versus tenodesis for long head of biceps tendon pathology: a systematic review and meta-analysis

There remains much debate regarding the optimal method for surgical management of patients with long head of biceps pathology. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of tenotomy versus tenodesis. This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO (ref: CRD42020198658). Electronic databases searched included EMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tenotomy versus tenodesis were included. Risk of bias within studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias v2.0 tool and the Jadad score. The primary outcome included patient reported functional outcome measures pooled using standardized mean difference (SMD) and a random effects model. Secondary outcome measures included pain (visual analogue scale VAS), rate of Popeye deformity, and operative time. 860 patients from 11 RCTs (426 tenotomy vs 434 tenodesis) were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis of all PROMs data demonstrated comparable outcomes between tenotomy vs tenodesis (SMD 0.14, 95% CI −0.04 to 0.32; p=0.13). Sensitivity analysis comparing RCTs involving patients with and without an intact rotator cuff did not change the primary outcome. There was no significant difference for pain (VAS). Tenodesis resulted in a lower rate of Popeye deformity (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.45, p < 0.00001). Tenotomy demonstrated a shorter operative time (MD 15.21, 95% CI 1.06 to 29.36, p < 0.00001). Aside from a lower rate of cosmetic deformity, tenodesis yielded no measurable significant benefit to tenotomy for addressing pathology in the long head of biceps. A large multi-centre clinical effectiveness randomised controlled trial is needed to provide clarity in this area.