• Arthroscopy
• Axillary nerve
• Biceps tenodesis
• Deltoid injury
• Shoulder
• Suprapectoral

• Arthroscopic
• Long head of biceps
• Open tenodesis
• Subpectoral
• Suprapectoral
• Tenodesis

• Humans
• Tenodesis/methods
• Tenodesis/adverse effects
• Postoperative Complications/etiology
• Muscle, Skeletal/surgery
• Range of Motion, Articular

• PN HPTTM
• functional impairment
• musculoskeletal disorders
• novel therapeutic approach
• peritendinous injection
• polynucleotides
• tendinitis
• visual analog scale

• Biceps tenodesis
• Double-row
• Knotless
• Outcomes
• Rotator cuff repair
• Shoulder

• clinical tests
• long head of biceps
• magnetic resonance imaging
• rotator cuff
• tendinopathy

• Humans
• Tenodesis/methods
• Female
• Middle Aged
• Male
• Arthroscopy/methods
• Rotator Cuff Injuries/surgery
• Treatment Outcome
• Aged
• Retrospective Studies
• Rotator Cuff/surgery
• Muscle, Skeletal/surgery

• biceps
• clinical outcomes
• radiostereometric analysis
• shoulder
• tenodesis

• Biceps tendinitis
• arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis
• biceps tenodesis
• open subpectoral biceps tenodesis

• Humans
• Tenodesis/methods
• Shoulder/surgery
• Tenosynovitis/surgery
• Arthroscopy/methods
• Pain

• Humans
• Tenodesis
• Reoperation
• Retrospective Studies
• Rotator Cuff/surgery
• Arthroplasty

• biceps tendinitis
• biomechanical study
• interference screw
• suture anchor

• all-suture suture anchor
• biceps tendon construct
• biceps tenodesis
• interference screw
• tendon migration

• Humans
• Tenodesis/methods
• Suture Anchors
• Cohort Studies
• Radiostereometric Analysis
• Tendons/diagnostic imaging
• Tendons/surgery
• Bone Screws

• Anatomy
• Assessment
• Function
• Long head of biceps
• Management
• Scoping review
• Shoulder

• Adult
• Humans
• Shoulder/surgery
• Rotator Cuff Injuries/surgery
• Arm/pathology
• Tendon Injuries/surgery
• Shoulder Pain/diagnosis
• Shoulder Pain/etiology
• Shoulder Pain/surgery
• Tenotomy/methods
• Tenodesis/methods
• Arthroscopy/methods

Background: For many years the long head of biceps tendon (LHBT) rupture has been described and is commonly identified by weakness, cramping, and the so-called "Popeye" sign. Traditionally, this was treated non-operatively, likely reflecting patient factors and the technical difficulty in reattaching a degenerative and shortened tendon. In contrast, traumatic distal biceps rupture is now commonly repaired despite historically being managed non-operatively. The advent of a convenient and reproducible surgical technique led to an increase in the rate of fixation, thereby improving the cramping and weakness associated with non-operative treatment. Given recent surgical advances within this field, many techniques are now present for LHBT pathology. We describe results from a cohort of patients suffering traumatic LHBT rupture who sought a surgical solution to improve their symptoms.

Methods: Over four years, 18 male patients underwent surgical intervention for isolated traumatic LHBT rupture. The technique used involved an open subpectoral tenodesis with fixation of the LHBT into the bicipital groove. Postoperative immobilization using a sling was recommended for six weeks prior to a progressive rehabilitation program. Patients were assessed with pre- and postoperative visual analog scores (VAS) for pain and American Shoulder and Elbow Society (ASES) scores.

Results: The mean patient age at the time of surgery was 49 years (range: 26-65 years). The mean time to surgery was nine weeks (range: 2-24 weeks). All patients showed an improvement following surgery with a mean pre-op ASES score of 33 (range: 10-60) compared to a post-op score of 92.6 (range: 85-100). All patients were able to return to work and sport, with all but one returning to the same functional demand level of work. The mean pre-op pain VAS was 6.3 (out of 10) compared to 0.2 post-op. All patients had a requirement for analgesia pre-operatively and none had postoperatively. No surgical complications were observed. No correlation was observed between the time to surgery and the outcome.

Discussion: LHBT rupture is often treated non-operatively as few studies within the literature describe the surgical technique and outcomes from surgical intervention. When treated non-operatively, patients complain of pain, cramping, and cosmetic deformity known as the "Popeye" sign. Following a traumatic rupture of the LHBT, we have demonstrated excellent outcomes using a standard approach and common fixation technique that has the potential to improve the functional outcome for symptomatic patients.

Conclusion: Open subpectoral biceps tenodesis is associated with excellent outcomes in symptomatic patients following isolated LHBT rupture.

Suprapectoral tenodesis is a common technique for the treatment of long head biceps tendon lesions. However, so far, there is no gold standard treatment in all-inside arthroscopy. The purpose of the present study was to introduce and evaluate the functional outcomes of an innovative, all-inside arthroscopic high resistance loop (H-loop, high resistance to tissue cutout and 360° grasping of the tendon) technique for long head of biceps (LHB) tenodesis.

From September 2020 to March 2022, a series of cases of 32 consecutive patients (28 rotator cuff tear with LHBT pathology and 4 superior labrum anterior-posterior (SLAP) tears which including 2 type II and 2 type IV) who received LHB tenodesis using all-inside arthroscopic high resistance loop technique were included in this study. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon Score (ASES), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Simple Shoulder Test Score (SST), Constant–Murley scores, and University of California at Los Angeles Scoring System (UCLA) were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients in preoperative and final follow-up. Meanwhile, postoperative complications were also observed.

32 patients (14 women and 18 men, average age was 55.7 years) underwent all-inside arthroscopic knotless suprapectoral biceps tenodesis using the H-Loop stitch technique. The mean time of follow-up was 16.2 ± 2.6 months. The ASES, VAS, Constant–Murley, SST, and UCLA scores improved from 51.5 ± 15.8, 5.5 ± 1.6, 57.8 ± 14.7, 5.0 ± 2.8, and 16.1 ± 3.8 preoperatively, to 89.1 ± 7.5, 1.0 ± 0.8, 87.3 ± 5.5, 10.4 ± 1.5, and 31.3 ± 2.6 in the last follow-up, respectively (p < 0.001). During the follow-up, no patients in this study experienced postoperative complications such as infection of the wound, injury of nerves, and hardware failure; no patients required revision after their operation. In addition, none of the patients had cramping or a “Popeye” deformity during follow-up.

This article presents an innovative, all-arthroscopic H-loop technique for LHB tenodesis. This technique for LHB tenodesis showed favorable functional and cosmetic outcomes, as well as high satisfaction rates. Due to its simplicity of operation and satisfactory preliminary clinical outcomes, H-loop technique is perhaps another option to choose in all-inside arthroscopic LHB tenodesis.

• National Natural Science Foundation of China
• Sun Yat-sen University

This study aimed to evaluate clinical, cosmetic, and strength midterm outcomes in arthroscopic biceps tenotomy and subpectoral biceps tenodesis using bicortical endobutton and interference screw.

In this retrospective study, inclusion criteria were long head of the biceps (LHB) pathologies treated either with tenotomy or an additional tenodesis. Postoperative assessment included Long Head of Biceps Score (LHBS), age-adjusted Constant-Murley Score, and Subjective Shoulder Value. Elbow flexion and forearm supination strength were measured. The presence of Popeye sign, cramps, and tenderness over the bicipital grove was evaluated. Statistical analysis of continuous variables without normal distribution was performed using Mann-Whitney U test. Grouped analysis was performed using 2-way analysis of variance. Binominal data were analyzed using chi-square test.

A total of 73 patients with a mean age of 63.1 ± 9.6 years and a mean follow-up of 4.2 ± 0.5 years were included. Tenotomy was performed in 34 and tenodesis in 39 patients. Tenodesis group displayed a significantly higher LHB score (P = .0006), but no significant differences were detected for the age-adjusted Constant-Murley Score and Subjective Shoulder Value. Tenodesis group showed a significantly lower rate of Popeye deformities (P = .0007) and tenderness over the bicipital groove (P = .004). Patients from the tenotomy group with biceps deformity showed a significantly higher mean contralateral supination strength (P = .002) but no significant difference in contralateral elbow flexion compared with patients without biceps deformity. There was one (1.4%) complication in the tenotomy group (postoperative shoulder stiffness).

Both techniques resulted in comparable outcome scores on preselected patients, with tenodesis leading to better LHB function. Tenodesis did not improve elbow flexion and forearm supination strength beyond the tenotomy; however, it reduced the frequency of biceps deformities and tenderness over the bicipital groove. Patients with a strong contralateral forearm supination strength could be at risk of developing a biceps deformity after tenotomy.

• biceps tenodesis
• complication
• outcome
• rotator cuff repair (RCR)
• shoulder
• surgery

• Tenodesis
• rotator cuff
• subpectoral
• suprapectoral

The long head of the biceps tendon is widely recognized as an important pain generator, especially in anterior shoulder pain and dysfunction with athletes and working individuals. The purpose of this review is to provide a current understanding of the long head of the biceps tendon anatomy and its surrounding structures, function, and relevant clinical information such as evaluation, treatment options, and complications in hopes of helping orthopaedic surgeons counsel their patients. An understanding of the long head of the biceps tendon anatomy and its surrounding structures is helpful to determine normal function as well as pathologic injuries that stem proximally. The biceps-labral complex has been identified and broken down into different regions that can further enhance a physician’s knowledge of common anterior shoulder pain etiologies. Although various physical examination maneuvers exist meant to localize the anterior shoulder pain, the lack of specificity requires orthopaedic surgeons to rely on patient history, advanced imaging, and diagnostic injections in order to determine the patient’s next steps. Nonsurgical treatment options such as anti-inflammatory medications, physical therapy, and ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injections should be utilized before entertaining surgical treatment options. If surgery is needed, the three options include biceps tenotomy, biceps tenodesis, or superior labrum anterior to posterior repair. Specifically for biceps tenodesis, recent studies have analyzed open vs arthroscopic techniques, the ideal location of tenodesis with intra-articular, suprapectoral, subpectoral, extra-articular top of groove, and extra-articular bottom of groove approaches, and the best method of fixation using interference screws, suture anchors, or cortical buttons. Orthopaedic surgeons should be aware of the complications of each procedure and respond accordingly for each patient. Once treated, patients often have good to excellent clinical outcomes and low rates of complications.

• Shoulder pathology
• Long head of the biceps tendon
• Biceps-labral complex
• Biceps tenotomy
• Biceps tenodesis
• Superior labrum anterior to posterior lesions

The purpose of this study was to compare the initial fixation strength between four different suture methods for the long head of the biceps.

Forty-eight fresh frozen porcine flexor hallucis longus tendons (mean width at suture site, 8.5 ± 0.9 mm) and phalanx bones were randomly assigned to one of the four arthroscopic biceps tenodesis techniques: simple stitch (SS), mattress suture (MS), lasso-loop (LL), and two simple stitches (2SS). A biceps tenodesis was performed according to the four techniques using all-suture type suture anchors (1.9-mm SUTUREFIX anchor with No. 1 ULTRABRAID sutures). Biomechanical evaluations were performed to test load to failure (N), stiffness (N/mm), stress (N/m²), and mode of failure.

As for the SS, MS, LL, and 2SS, the mean load to failure was 50.9 ± 14.61 N, 82.3 ± 24.8 N, 116.2 ± 26.7 N, and 130.8 ± 22.5 N (p < 0.001), respectively; mean stiffness was 6.1 ± 1.3 N/mm, 6.7 ± 2.6 N/mm, 7.8 ± 1.4 N/mm, and 8.1 ± 4.2 N/mm, respectively (p = 0.258); and mean stress was 0.7 ± 0.3 N/m², 1.4 ± 0.8 N/m², 2.9 ± 0.7 N/m², and 2.7 ± 0.8 N/m², respectively (p < 0.001). All the failures happened by the suture cutting through the tendon along its longitudinal fibers.

Neither the SS nor the MS method was enough to securely fix the biceps tendon with a significantly lower mechanical strength; however, the 2SS method showed similar initial fixation strength as the LL technique.

• Shoulder
• biceps tendon
• general sports trauma

To evaluate the clinical outcomes and rate of return to play (RTP) in patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis.

A retrospective review of patients who underwent combined arthroscopic Bankart repair and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis by a single surgeon between 2012 and 2016 was performed. RTP, the level of return, and the timing of return were assessed. Visual analog scale for pain, Rowe score, Shoulder Instability-Return to Sport after Injury score, and Subjective Shoulder Value were evaluated.

The study included 14 patients, with a mean follow-up of 34.2 ± 12.1 months. Of the 14 patients, 13 (92.9%) returned to sport at a mean of 4.8 ± 1.2 months and 9 (64.3%) returned to the same or higher level of sport. At final follow-up, the mean Rowe was 80.0 ± 16.3, the mean Subjective Shoulder Value was 81.0 ± 15.1, the mean Shoulder Instability-Return to Sport after Injury was 57.3 ± 25.6, and the mean visual analog scale score was 2.6 ± 1.5. One patient had a recurrent dislocation, whereas no patients underwent a further operation on the ipsilateral shoulder.

Patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair combined with open subpectoral biceps tenodesis had a high rate of RTP with a low rate of recurrent instability.

IV, Therapeutic Case Series.

Pathology of the long head of the biceps tendon frequently occurs concomitantly with rotator cuff tears, necessitating a surgical treatment, often in the form of a tenodesis procedure. Many techniques for a tenodesis exist; however, they often require additional implants or a separate incision.

To report an average of 2-year outcomes of an all-arthroscopic biceps tenodesis employing the stay sutures from the anterolateral anchor during concomitant double-row rotator cuff repair (RCR).

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed for all patients who underwent an all-arthroscopic biceps tenodesis during concomitant double-row RCR by the senior author between January 2014 and May 2018. Patients were included if they underwent this procedure and had baseline preoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with a minimum of 1 year of postoperative PROs for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain score. Additionally, patient data, surgical history, postoperative complications, and satisfaction were reported.

Fifteen patients were eligible for the study. There were 12 (80%) men and 3 (20%) women with a mean age of 50.0 years (range, 35-64 years). The mean follow-up time was 25.2 months (range, 13-63 months). Six of 15 (40%) patients also had an arthroscopic subscapularis repair performed. ASES shoulder scores improved from 37.1 preoperatively to 94.1 postoperatively (P < .001), and VAS scores improved from 6.4 preoperatively to 0.5 postoperatively (P < .001). One patient who underwent concomitant subscapularis repair reported continued anterior groove pain. No patients experienced biceps cramping, developed a deformity, or required a repeat operation at the final follow-up. Overall, 93.3% of the patients reported being highly satisfied with their surgery.

This study presents the clinical results of an all-arthroscopic technique for concomitant double-row RCR and biceps tenodesis, which resulted in high rates of patient satisfaction and significant improvement in reported shoulder outcome and pain scores. Additionally, this technique offers the potential benefits of avoiding a secondary incision, which may decrease surgical morbidity while also decreasing cost by eliminating the need for an extra, tenodesis-specific implant.

• biceps tenodesis
• clinical outcomes
• rotator cuff repair
• shoulder arthroscopy

• Arthroscopy
• Interscalene block
• Level of evidence: III
• Opioids
• Pain
• Tenodesis

• Biceps tendinitis
• Biceps tenodesis
• arthroscopy
• shoulder
• workers' compensation
• workmans' compensation

Biceps tenodesis is a surgical treatment for both superior labral anterior-posterior (SLAP) tears and long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) abnormalities. Biceps tenodesis can be performed either above or below the pectoralis major tendon with arthroscopic or open techniques.

To analyze the outcomes and complications comparing primary arthroscopic suprapectoral versus open subpectoral biceps tenodesis for either SLAP tears or LHBT disorders.

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

A search strategy based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Meta-Analyses) protocol was used to include 18 articles (471 patients) from a total of 974 articles identified. Overall exclusion criteria included the following: non–English language, non–full text, biceps tenodesis with concomitant rotator cuff repair, review articles, meta-analyses, and case reports. Data were extracted and analyzed according to procedure type and tenodesis location: arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (295 patients) versus open subpectoral bicepts tenodesis (176 patients).

For arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis, the weighted mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score was 90.0 (97 patients) and the weighted mean Constant score was 88.7 (108 patients); for open subpectoral biceps tenodesis, the mean ASES score was 91.1 (199 patients) and mean Constant score was 84.7 (65 patients). Among the 176 patients who underwent arthroscopic biceps tenodesis, there was an overall complication rate of 9.1%. Among the 295 patients who underwent open biceps tenodesis, there was an overall complication rate of 13.5%. Both residual pain (5.7% vs 4.7%, respectively) and Popeye deformity (1.7% vs 1.0%, respectively) rates were similar between the groups. Open subpectoral biceps tenodesis had higher reoperation (3.0% vs 0.0%, respectively), wound complication (1.0% vs 0.0%, respectively), and nerve injury (0.7% vs 0.0%, respectively) rates postoperatively. A meta-analysis of 3 studies demonstrated that both methods had similar ASES scores (P = .36) as well as all-cause complication rates (odds ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.13-4.48]; P = .26).

Patients undergoing arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis for either SLAP tears or LHBT abnormalities had similar outcome scores and complication rates compared with those undergoing open subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Additionally, both residual pain and Popeye deformity rates were similar between the 2 groups.

• arthroscopic biceps tenodesis
• complication
• mini-open biceps tenodesis
• open biceps tenodesis

• Biceps tendon long head
• arthroscopic
• outcomes
• rotator cuff
• tenodesis

• ASES
• Biceps tenodesis
• PIF CAT
• PROMIS
• UE CAT
• depression CAT
• patient-reported outcomes
• patient-reported outcomes information system

Biceps tenotomy and tenodesis are surgical treatments for pathology of the proximal tendon of the long head of the biceps. There is debate over which procedure provides better patient outcomes.

Compare patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction between biceps tenotomy and tenodesis.

This retrospective cohort study including all patients undergoing arthroscopic biceps tenodesis or tenotomy as part of more extensive shoulder surgery with a single surgeon. Concomitant procedures included rotator cuff repair, subacromial decompression, acromioclavicular joint resection, and debridement. Patients 36–81 years old were contacted by phone at > 2-year post-operatively to complete a biceps-specific outcome questionnaire. Subject decision not to participate was the sole exclusion criterion. Satisfaction scores and frequencies of potential biceps-related downsides (biceps cramping/spasms, biceps pain, shoulder pain, weakness, cosmetic deformity) were analyzed for the effects of procedure, sex, and age.

Satisfaction score distributions were similar between patients with tenodesis and patients with tenotomy (χ² = 8.34, P = 0.08), although slightly more patients with tenodesis than patients with tenotomy reported being satisfied or very satisfied (96% versus 91%). Perceived downsides occurred more frequently among patients with tenotomy than in patients with tenodesis: 59% of patients with tenotomy reported ≥ 1 downside, versus 37% of patients with tenodesis (P < 0.01). In patients reporting ≥ 1 downside, distributions of total downsides differed between procedures (χ² = 10.04, P = 0.04): patients with tenotomy were more likely to report multiple concurrent downsides than were patients with tenodesis (31% versus 16%). Each individual downside tended to be reported as present by a greater proportion of patients with tenotomy than patients with tenodesis. Sex had no effect on satisfaction or downsides, but there was a trend for older patients to report higher satisfaction and fewer downsides.

Biceps tenotomy and tenodesis are both viable treatments for proximal biceps tendon pathology, yielding high patient satisfaction. There were trends toward greater satisfaction and fewer problems in patients with tenodesis. Still, younger patients with tenodesis did report perceived downsides. Alternatively, older patients tended to be more satisfied with both procedures overall. Regardless of procedure, most patients receiving either tenotomy or tenodesis would undergo their respective surgery again.

Level III evidence, retrospective comparative cohort study

• Biceps tendon
• Downsides
• Shoulder arthroscopy
• Shoulder pain
• Spasms/cramping

• arthroscopic
• biceps
• complications
• long head biceps
• open
• tenodesis

• biceps inlay
• biceps onlay
• biceps tendinitis
• biceps tenodesis
• interference screw
• long head biceps

• Adult
• Aged
• Aged, 80 and over
• Arthroscopy/adverse effects
• Arthroscopy/methods
• Databases, Factual
• Female
• Humans
• Male
• Middle Aged
• Muscle, Skeletal/surgery
• Orthopedic Procedures
• Postoperative Complications/epidemiology
• Rotator Cuff Injuries/surgery
• Tenodesis/adverse effects
• Tenodesis/methods

The purpose of the present study was to compare the results of open subpectoral biceps tenodesis and arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis for treating long head of biceps (LHB) lesions. From January 2015 to June 2016, a total of 259 patients underwent LHB tenodesis surgery. Among them, 117 patients (60 females and 57 males) who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were enrolled into the present study and were randomly divided into two groups, including an open subpectoral tenodesis group (OSPBT; n=62) and an arthroscopic proximal tenodesis group (ASPBT; n=55). All patients were followed up for at least 12 months. The demographic characteristics of each patient were recorded in detail. Moreover, clinical examinations of LHB lesions, such as shoulder range of motion (ROM), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores (0, no pain, to 10, most severe pain), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, and Constant-Murley shoulder outcome scores, were investigated prior to surgery, as well as 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. Postoperative complications were also comprehensively investigated. There were no significant differences in sex, body mass index, dominant shoulder, duration of pain, injury type and operation time between the groups. The mean length of hospital stay in the ASPBT group was significantly lower than that of the OSPBT group (5.4±1.8 days vs. 9.3±2.9 days; P<0.05). The clinical outcomes, including shoulder ROMs, VAS scores, ASES scores and Constant-Murley shoulder outcome scores, were significantly improved after either OSPBT or ASPBT treatment. Specifically, the VAS score, incidence of postoperative stiffness and bicipital groove tenderness in the OSPBT group were significantly lower than those in the ASPBT group at 3 months post-surgery (P<0.05). Additionally, there were no significant difference in the improvement of other clinical outcomes and postoperative complications between the two groups. ASPBT and OSPBT were both effective and safe techniques for treating LHB lesions. However, tenderness of the bicipital groove was more common in the early stages of recovery post-surgery in the ASPBT group, which may be related to tendinitis of the LHB in the bicipital groove.

• arthroscopic proximal tenodesis
• long head of bicep
• open subpectoral tenodesis

The purpose of this study was to determine whether patients undergoing any shoulder arthroscopic procedure with concomitant biceps tenodesis have higher reoperation and complication rates vs. patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy without concomitant biceps tenodesis.

A large database was queried for patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy, identified by Current Procedural Terminology code. Only records indicating the laterality of the procedure were included. Patients were divided into 3 cohorts: arthroscopic shoulder surgery without concomitant biceps tenodesis (group 1), surgery with arthroscopic biceps tenodesis (group 2), and surgery with open biceps tenodesis (group 3). Reoperations on the same shoulder, as well as medical or surgical complications (by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code) during the 30-day postoperative period, were determined. Multivariate logistic regression was used to control for differences in age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index between groups.

We identified 62,461 patients (54.3% male patients) in the database who underwent shoulder arthroscopy, with 51,773 patients in group 1, 7134 patients in group 2, and 3554 patients in group 3. Overall, 3134 patients (5.0%) underwent a shoulder arthroscopy reoperation. With adjustment for age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, the biceps intervention groups demonstrated a significantly higher overall reoperation rate (odds ratio, 1.3 [95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.5]; P < .001). Patients undergoing biceps tenodesis had a lower adjusted overall 30-day complication rate vs. those not undergoing tenodesis (odds ratio, 0.82 [95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.86]; P < .001).

Reoperation rates were significantly higher in patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy with biceps tenodesis than in patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy without biceps tenodesis. Both the arthroscopic and open tenodesis groups had significantly lower complication rates.