Biceps Autograft Augmentation for Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review

To improve surgical outcomes in patients with massive cuff defects, different techniques and augmentations are proposed. The biceps tendon is easily available as an autograft. Our aim was to conduct a qualitative systematic review of various methods and surgical techniques that use a biceps autograft (BAG) for rotator cuff repair. Functional outcomes are also reported. We hypothesized that by using a BAG to treat massive rotator cuff tears, a more anatomic and biomechanical reconstruction could be achieved compared with other techniques.

A qualitative systematic review was conducted (MEDLINE and Embase databases) to inventory surgical techniques for use of a BAG for rotator cuff repair. The following search terms were used for MEDLINE: biceps AND (augment* OR autograft* OR transplantation* OR (cuff AND graft*) OR biceps-incorporat*). Studies were included if the following criteria were fulfilled: description of surgical technique, only human subjects, functional outcomes noted, all study designs except technical notes, and no restrictions on study date. The quality of the studies was assessed in a standardized manner using a tool based on the Cochrane handbook.

We identified 981 studies; among these, 8 case series met the inclusion criteria. We identified 6 studies as high quality and 2 as medium quality. Different techniques for harvest and augmentation were used. Some studies left the proximal or distal portion intact, whereas others used it as a free graft. The clinical results of these studies showed significantly improved function, pain relief, and range of motion at follow-up, although this was not compared with a control group. The constructs were intact on magnetic resonance imaging in most patients (82%) within 2 years.

It can be concluded that use of a BAG is an option for augmentation in massive rotator cuff tears, although no definitive recommendations can be given. This is based on Level IV medium- and high-quality studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level IV studies.