Open repairs with biceps rerouting does not impact retears in large to massive rotator cuff tears compared to...

The treatment of large to massive rotator cuff tears leads to a high failure rate and several techniques have been proposed to improve these results. Rerouting the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) appears to be a biological reinforcement to increase tendon healing. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of open repair for large and massive rotator cuff tears reinforced with the LHBT to conventional open repair.

A prospective randomized study was conducted with patients diagnosed with large to massive rotator posterosuperior rotator cuff tear and intact LHBT, randomized into 2 groups: biceps rerouting and conventional open repair. The functional outcomes were assessed by the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon score, University of California at Los Angeles score, and SF-12 questionnaire preoperatively and at 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Pain level was also assessed by the visual analog scale including the first day and 2 weeks postoperatively. Structural outcomes were rotator cuff and LHBT healing with magnetic resonance imaging and acromiohumeral distance (AHD) through radiography.

We evaluated 58 patients, 29 in each group. At the end of the follow-up there were no statistically significant differences between groups in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon (76.1 vs. 80.4, P = .761), University of California at Los Angeles (27.1 vs. 29.1, P = .634), or visual analog scale scores (1.3 vs. 1.1, P = .781). Additionally, rotator cuff healing rates (48.3% vs. 44.8%, P = .402) and LHBT healing rates (79.3% vs. 82.7%, P = .738) were similar. AHD increased in both groups, with no significant difference in delta AHD (P = .513). Both groups showed significant clinical improvement over time in all evaluated outcomes (P < 0,01). No postoperative complications were reported.

We could not identify an advantage of open repair with LHBT rerouting as reinforcement over conventional open repair. Nonetheless, all clinical scores improved at the end of the 24 months of follow-up in both groups.