Case-control comparison of "in-the-groove" and lateral-row arthroscopic biceps tenodesis with concomitant rotator cuff repair.

backgroundLateral-row (LR) arthroscopic biceps tenodesis (BT) has been described as a technique using an LR rotator cuff repair (RCR) anchor for biceps fixation. This technique has not been compared with other BT techniques. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing a suprapectoral "in-the-groove" arthroscopic BT and patients treated with an LR tenodesis performed in conjunction with arthroscopic RCR.

methodsPatients undergoing arthroscopic BT in the setting of an arthroscopic RCR were evaluated preoperatively and at a minimum of 12 months' follow-up. Patients who underwent an in-the-groove BT were matched 1:1 to patients who underwent an LR BT based on age at surgery and size of the rotator cuff tear using the Patte classification. Comparisons made included age, sex, body mass index, patient-reported outcome measures, range of motion, and patient satisfaction.

resultsThere were 82 patients (41 in each group) who met the inclusion criteria, with an average follow-up period of 33 months and average age of 61 years. By use of the Patte classification, there were 20 matched pairs with stage 1 tears, 11 matched pairs with stage 2 tears, and 10 matched pairs with stage 3 tears. Comparisons of the 2 cohorts revealed no differences in preoperative or postoperative motion, patient-reported outcome measures, or patient satisfaction. Furthermore, no differences were found in overall improvements in motion or outcome measures, as well as overall satisfaction.

conclusionsPatients undergoing simultaneous RCR and BT demonstrate similar patient-reported and objective outcomes for both LR tenodesis and in-the-groove tenodesis techniques.