Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 11, 2025
A Protocol to Acquire the Degenerative Tenocyte from Humans
Published on: June 9, 2018
Onlay Versus Inlay Biceps Tenodesis for Long Head of Biceps Tendinopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Garrett R Jackson1, Joshua Meade, Kyle Coombes
1From the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL (Dr. Jackson); the OrthoCarolina, Charlotte, NC (Mr. Meade, Dr. Young, Dr. Hamid, Dr. Piasecki, Dr. Fleischli, and Dr. Saltzman); the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Atrium Health Musculoskeletal Institute, Charlotte, NC (Mr. Meade, Dr. Young, Dr. Hamid, Dr. Piasecki, Dr. Fleischli, and Dr. Saltzman); the American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine, Cupecoy, Sint Maarten (Mr. Coombes); and the Department of Orthopedics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY (Dr. Trofa).
Introduction:
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.
Methods:
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.
Results:
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.
Conclusion:
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.
