Revision Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Demonstrates a High Patient Satisfaction and Good Functional Outcomes

Abstract

Purpose: To clinically evaluate a subset of patients who underwent a revision subpectoral biceps tenodesis for a clinically failed proximal biceps tenodesis. Methods: This is a retrospective case series of patients with at least 2-year follow-up who had undergone a revision biceps tenodesis after clinical failure of a proximal biceps tenodesis between January 2008 and February 2020 by a single surgeon. Patients who underwent concomitant procedures, such as revision cuff repair, were excluded. Patients with a minimum of 2 years duration status postrevision subpectoral tenodesis were contacted for informed consent and outcome data, which included Simple Shoulder Test, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, visual analog scale for pain, and subjective reporting of arm weakness and satisfaction. Results: Fourteen patients were initially identified as meeting inclusion criteria with a minimum 2-year follow-up achieved for 11 of 14 patients (78.5% follow-up). The mean follow-up time was 8.1 years (range, 2.7-14.8 years). After the primary biceps tenodesis, a mean of 8.0 ± 9.6 months passed before the revision subpectoral biceps tenodesis was performed. The average postoperative active forward elevation and adducted external rotation were 159 ± 7° and 47 ± 17°, respectively. The mean ± standard deviation (range) follow-up American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was 79 ± 23 (30-100), Simple Shoulder Test was 11 ± 2 (7-12), and visual analog scale for pain was 2.6 ± 2.8 (0-9). All 11 patients reported being satisfied with their operation and would elect to have the operation again. Conclusions: Revision subpectoral biceps tenodesis is a viable procedure for addressing patients with persistent pain following initial proximal biceps tenodesis. Although some persistent pain is common, revision subpectoral biceps tenodesis demonstrates a high patient satisfaction and good functional outcomes. Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic case series.