Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 23, 2025
Arthroscopic Management of Massive Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tears: Whole Rotator Cable Reconstruction Using Proximal Biceps Tendon Autograft
Published on: June 6, 2025
Biceps tenodesis versus tenotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of level I randomized controlled trials
John W Belk1, Matthew J Kraeutler2, Darby A Houck1
1Department of Orthopaedics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
Background:
Biceps tenodesis and tenotomy are 2 surgical treatment options for relief of long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) pathology and superior labrum anterior-to-posterior (SLAP) tears. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the clinical outcomes and complications of biceps tenodesis and tenotomy for the treatment of LHBT or SLAP pathology during shoulder arthroscopy.
Methods:
We performed a systematic review by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify level I randomized controlled trials that compared the clinical outcomes of biceps tenodesis vs. tenotomy. The search phrase used was as follows: biceps tenodesis tenotomy randomized. Patients were assessed based on the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, visual analog scale score for pain, and Constant-Murley score, as well as postoperative range of motion, strength, and cosmetic deformity.
Results:
Five studies (all level I) met the inclusion criteria, including 236 patients undergoing biceps tenodesis (mean age, 60.3 years) and 232 patients undergoing biceps tenotomy (mean age, 59.7 years). The mean follow-up period was 23.0 months. Overall, 6.8% of tenodesis patients experienced cosmetic deformity at latest follow-up compared with 23.3% of tenotomy patients (P < .001). No differences in Constant-Murley, visual analog scale, or American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores were found between groups in any study, and of all the studies evaluating strength and range of motion at latest follow-up, only 1 found a significant difference between groups, in which tenodesis patients demonstrated significantly increased forearm supination strength (P = .02). One study found tenodesis patients to experience significantly more biceps cramping at 6-month follow-up compared with tenotomy patients (P = .043), although no differences in complication rates at latest follow-up were found in any study.
Conclusion:
Patients undergoing treatment for LHBT or SLAP pathology with either biceps tenodesis or tenotomy can be expected to experience similar improvements in patient-reported and functional outcomes. There is an increased rate of cosmetic deformity in patients undergoing biceps tenotomy compared with tenodesis.
