RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Although tenotomy and tenodesis are frequently used for long head of the biceps tendon lesions, controversies remain as to which technique is superior regarding pain, functionality, complications, and cosmetic appearance. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) For long head of biceps tendon lesions, does tenotomy or tenodesis result in greater improvements in VAS score for pain? (2) Which approach has superior results when evaluating function outcome (Constant) scores? (3) Does tenotomy or tenodesis have fewer complications? (4) Does tenotomy or tenodesis result in better cosmesis (Popeye sign)? METHODS: A systematic review was performed in the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Literatura Latino Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS) using the keywords "long head of the biceps tendon," "biceps tenodesis," and "tenotomy." We completed the search in June 2020. The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials and quasirandomized controlled trials that investigated tenodesis and tenotomy with no language restriction and evaluation of adult patients who presented with a long head of the biceps tendon lesion, associated with other lesions or not, without previous shoulder surgeries and who had no response to nonoperative treatment. The initial search yielded 239 studies, 40 of which were duplicates. We assessed the titles and abstracts of 199 articles and excluded all studies that were not randomized controlled trials (literature reviews) or that compared different techniques. We assessed the full text of 14 articles and excluded the ones that were protocols and cohort studies. We evaluated the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. We included eight studies in this systematic review and meta-analysis, with a total of 615 participants, 306 of whom were treated with tenotomy and 309 with tenodesis. The median duration of follow-up was 2 years. Overall, the included studies had a low risk of bias. The complications evaluated were adhesive capsulitis, biceps brachii tear, cramps, and a subsequent second surgical procedure. We used a random model in this meta-analysis so that we could generalize the results beyond the included studies. In this study, we only reported differences between the groups if they were both statistically valid and larger than the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). RESULTS: Comparing tenotomy and tenodesis, we observed no difference between the groups regarding pain in the long term (mean difference 0.25 [95% confidence interval -0.29 to 0.80]; p = 0.36). There was no difference in Constant score in the long-term (mean difference -1.45 [95% CI -2.96 to 0.06]; p = 0.06). There were no differences when evaluating for major complications (odds ratio 1.37 [95% CI 0.29 to 6.56]; p = 0.70). There were not enough papers evaluating adhesive capsulitis, cramping, and risk of revision surgery. Popeye sign was more frequent in the tenotomy group than in the tenodesis group (OR 4.70 [95% CI 2.71 to 8.17]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This systematic review demonstrated that tenotomy and tenodesis offer satisfactory treatment for long head of the biceps tendon lesions. In terms of pain improvement and Constant score, there was no difference between the techniques, but patients undergoing tenotomy have worse cosmetic results. Therefore, surgeons should choose the technique based on their skills and the patient's expectations of surgery, such as cosmesis and time to recovery. More studies are needed to evaluate complications such as adhesive capsulitis and cramping, as well as to compare duration of surgery and recovery time for each technique. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the gold standard in diagnosing rotator cuff pathology; however, there is a lack of studies investigating the reliability agreement for supraspinatus partial-thickness tears among orthopaedic surgeons and musculoskeletal (MSK) radiologists. METHODS: Sixty digital MRI scans (1.5 Tesla) were reviewed by two orthopaedic shoulder surgeons, two MSK radiologists, two fellowship-trained shoulder surgeons, and two fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons at two distinct times. Thirty-two scans of partial-thickness tears and twenty-eight scans of the supraspinatus tendon with no tears were included. Supraspinatus tendonosis and tears, long head of the biceps pathology, acromial morphology, acromioclavicular joint pathology and muscle fatty infiltration were assessed and interpreted according to the Goutallier system. After a four-week interval, the evaluators were asked to review the same scans in a different random order. The statistical analyses for the intra- and interobserver agreement results were calculated using the kappa value and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: The intraobserver agreement for supraspinatus tears was moderate among the MSK radiologists (k = 0.589; 95% CI, 0.446-0.732) and the orthopaedic shoulder surgeons (k = 0.509; 95% CI, 0.324-0.694) and was fair among the fellowship-trained shoulder surgeons (k = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.048-0.492) and the fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons (k = 0.372; 95% CI, 0.152-0.592). The overall intraobserver agreement was good (k = 0.627; 95% CI, 0.576-0.678). The intraobserver agreement was moderate for biceps tendonosis (k = 0.491), acromial morphology (k = 0.526), acromioclavicular joint arthrosis (k = 0.491) and muscle fatty infiltration (k = 0.505). The interobserver agreement results for supraspinatus tears were fair and poor among the evaluators: the MSK radiologists and the orthopaedic shoulder surgeons had the highest agreement (k = 0.245; 95% CI, 0.055-0.435). CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of digital MRI scans, there was an overall good intraobserver agreement for supraspinatus partial tears; however, there were also poor and fair interobserver agreement results. The evaluators with higher levels of experience (the orthopaedic shoulder surgeons and the MSK radiologists) demonstrated better results than evaluators with lower levels of experience.

Assuntos

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to investigate Brazilian orthopedists' opinions regarding the main aspects of the treatment of glenohumeral traumatic dislocation and compare these to literature's current concepts. METHODS: Two hundred questionnaires containing 13 items were randomly distributed to orthopedists who were attending a Brazilian orthopedics congress; 158 were filled, in correctly and were considered in this study. RESULTS: The preferred maneuver was traction-countertraction (60.8%). Among the respondents, 68.4% stated that glenohumeral dislocation reduction was achieved in the first attempt in 90% of the cases. The first attempt of reduction occurred mainly in the Emergency room (96.5%). Seventy-nine individuals (50%) reported that they do not use any analgesic prior to reduction. The majority of the participants immobilize their patients after the reduction (98.1%). 75.4% of them keep their patients immobilized from 2 to 3 weeks. CONCLUSION: Generally, Brazilian orthopaedists perform tractioncountertraction maneuvers, achieving reduction in the first attempt in more than 90% of the cases in the Emergency room. No previous analgesic agent is used prior to reduction. Immobilization of the patient is made with a Velpeau dressing or a sling for 2 to 3 weeks.