Hombro/Shoulder: tenodesis con o sin hardware

Ultrasound and clinical evaluation of soft-tissue versus hardware biceps tenodesis: is hardware tenodesis worth the cost?

Authors: Elkousy H Romero JA Edwards TB Gartsman GM O'Connor DP

Source: Am J. Orthop. 2014 Feb; 43(2):62-5.

INTRODUCTION

This study assesses the failure rate of soft-tissue versus hardware fixation of biceps tenodesis by ultrasound to determine if the expense of a hardware tenodesis technique is warranted. 

METHODS

Seventy-two patients that underwent arthroscopic biceps tenodesis over a 3-year period were evaluated using postoperative ultrasonography and clinical examination. The tenodesis technique employed was either a soft-tissue technique with sutures or an interference screw technique using hardware based on surgeon preference. 

RESULTS

Patient age was 57.9 years on average with ultrasound and clinical examination done at an average of 9.3 months postoperatively. Thirty-one patients had a hardware technique and 41 a soft-tissue technique. Overall, 67.7% of biceps tenodesis done with hardware were intact, compared with 75.6% for the soft-tissue technique by ultrasound (P = .46). Clinical evaluation indicated that 80.7% of hardware techniques and 78% of soft-tissue techniques were intact. Average material cost to the hospital for the hardware technique was $514.32, compared with $32.05 for the soft-tissue technique. 

CONCLUSION

Biceps tenodesis success, as determined by clinical deformity and ultrasound, was not improved using hardware as compared to soft-tissue techniques. Soft-tissue techniques are equally efficacious and more cost effective than hardware techniques.