Superior Capsular Reconstruction using the Long Head of Biceps Tendon: A Biomechanical Assessment of Tenodesis Location and Angle of Fixation

• Published in: Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery
• Main Authors: Paccot, Daniel, Fleet, Cole T., Johnson, James A., Athwal, George S.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 15.08.2024
• Subjects: Cuff tear arthropathy; Humeral head migration; Long head biceps; Massive rotator cuff tears; Rotator cuff tear; Shoulder; Superior capsule reconstruction; Long head biceps; Biomechanics; Rotator cuff tear; Humeral head migration; Superior capsule reconstruction; Shoulder; Basic Science Study; Massive rotator cuff tears; Cuff tear arthropathy
• ISSN: 1058-2746; 1532-6500; 1532-6500
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2024.07.007

Massive irreparable rotator cuff tears (MIRCT) treated with superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) using the long head of the biceps tendon have shown satisfactory early results. Different techniques and positions for biceps tenodesis have been described. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of tenodesis location and glenohumeral fixation angle for graft tensioning on the biomechanics of a SCR using a single strand biceps technique. Eight cadaveric shoulders were mounted to a custom biomechanical simulator which employed static tone loads to the deltoid and rotator cuff muscles. All cadavers were first tested in the intact condition, and then in the simulated MIRCT condition by sectioning the tendinous insertions of the supraspinatus and upper border of the infraspinatus. SCR using the long head of the biceps tendon was then evaluated. Three biceps tenodesis locations relative to the greater tuberosity (anterior, middle, and posterior) and two glenohumeral fixation angles (0° and 30°) for graft tensioning were tested. An optical tracking system was used to quantify superior-inferior (SI) and anterior-posterior (AP) humeral head translation relative to the glenoid, while the functional abduction force was quantified using a load sensor. All tests were conducted at 0°, 30° and 60° of glenohumeral abduction in a randomized fashion. When assessing isolated superior humeral head migration, all biceps tenodesis locations were effective at decreasing superior migration, with no tenodesis location significantly better than the other (P=0.213). However, biceps grafts tensioned at 30° of glenohumeral abduction were significantly better at reducing proximal humeral migration as compared to graft tensioning at 0° abduction (P=0.008). Posterior humeral head translation observed in the MIRCT condition was significantly reduced when tensioning the biceps tendon at 30° of glenohumeral abduction compared to 0° for all tenodesis locations (P≤0.043). Tenodesis location also significantly influenced posterior humeral head translation (P=0.001), with middle and posterior positions restoring near normal humeral head position when fixed at 30° glenohumeral abduction. All SCR techniques using the biceps tendon improved the functional abduction force relative to the MIRCT condition, although no statistically significant differences were observed relative to the intact condition (P≥0.448). SCR using the long head biceps tendon is biomechanically effective in reducing posterosuperior translation of the humeral head in the setting of a MIRCT. Graft tensioning and fixation at 30° of glenohumeral abduction combined with either a middle or posterior tenodesis location on the greater tuberosity most effectively restores near normal time-zero humeral head kinematics.