Onlay Versus Inlay Biceps Tenodesis for Long Head of Biceps Tendinopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
meta_analysis · Level I
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 36732300.
- Also identified by DOI 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-22-00255 and PMC identifier 9746747.
- Licence recorded as CC BY.
- The licence permits redistribution, so the abstract is shown in full and the full text is available from the publisher.
Abstract
Proximal biceps tenodesis is a common surgical treatment of tendinosis of the long head of the biceps tendon. Two of the most common techniques incorporate onlay and inlay fixation methods, which can be done arthroscopically or open and in a variety of anatomic locations. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes between onlay versus inlay humeral fixation for biceps tenodesis for long head of the biceps tendon pathology. A literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Only studies reporting outcomes and complications after onlay and inlay biceps tenodeses were included. Six studies with a total of 418 patients (252 onlay, 166 inlay) with a mean age of 56.84 years were included. Visual analog pain scale scores, Constant score, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons shoulder score did not differ. "Popeye" deformity was found in 17 patients (7.80%) in the onlay group and in 15 patients (11.28%) in the inlay group (odds ratio, 0.28; P = 0.07). No difference in postoperative cramping or failure rates was found. Both onlay and inlay biceps tenodeses result in improved clinical outcomes and are at low risk of Popeye deformities, with no statistically significant differences between either method. Additional studies are required to assess the clinical significance of these differences.
Medical subject headings
- Tenodesis
- Tendinopathy