CClinicalTrials.gg
TerminatedNCT03529162Updated Apr 29, 2021Results posted

A Prospective Study Comparing Suture Anchor and Soft Tissue Pectoralis Major Tendon Techniques for Biceps Tenodesis

An interventional study of Long head of Biceps Tenodesis in Bicep Tendinitis, Biceps; Tenosynovitis and Biceps Tendon Disorder, sponsored by St. Louis University. Terminated at 3 sites in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 100 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2021-04-29.

Sponsored by St. Louis University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Why this study was terminated
COVID-19, followed by PI leaving institution.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
4
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 100 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This is a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing two common techniques of long head of biceps tendon tenodesis in shoulder surgery. Numerous techniques of biceps tenodesis currently exist and are commonly performed. We will be comparing the tenodesis procedure using a suture anchor device versus a technique where the tendon is simply sutured to the pectoralis major tendon.

Read the detailed description

Biceps tenodesis is a commonly performed procedure in shoulder surgery. In many cases, it is performed in conjunction with a rotator cuff repair. Currently, biceps tenodesis is performed in many different ways depending on surgeon preference. First, the location of the tenodesis can vary, as surgeons may prefer a suprapectoral or subpectoral tenodesis location. In addition, the tenodesis fixation technique can also vary, as surgeons have the option to use a screw or suture anchor to perform the tenodesis. There have been numerous studies comparing these various techniques, including suprapectoral versus subpectoral techniques and screw versus suture anchor techniques. None of these studies have been conclusive, and there continues to be controversy as to the best technique.

The current study will compare two techniques of subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Specifically, we will compare tenodesis using a suture anchor versus a technique where the tendon is simply sutured to the pectoralis major tendon. The latter technique has been previously described and published.

02

Conditions studied

  • Bicep Tendinitis
  • Biceps; Tenosynovitis
  • Biceps Tendon Disorder

Keywords

  • Biceps Tendinitis
  • Subpectoral biceps tenodesis
  • Biceps tendon disorder
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 100 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

  • Age 18 - 100 years
  • Able to provide written informed consent
  • Has: (a) partial- or full-thickness rotator cuff tear verified by preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and arthroscopy; (b) concomitant biceps lesions (LHBT partial tear>50%, SLAP type II lesion, pulley lesion, or subluxation/dislocation of LHBT) that were diagnosed arthroscopically with concomitant symptoms; and (c) arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Any medical illness that adversely impacts the patient's ability to complete the study procedures
  • Isolated glenohumeral pathological conditions
  • Any prior surgery on the same shoulder
  • Complete rupture of the LHBT assessed by MRI or at time of procedure
  • Incomplete repair of the rotator cuff
04

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
4 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Suture Anchor Technique (SA)

    If randomized to this group, the patient will receive an open subpectoral long head of biceps tenodesis technique whereby the long head of biceps is re-attached to the humerus using an FDA-approved suture anchor (SA) device for the suture anchor technique. The device to be used will be the Mitek Super Quick Anchor.

    Procedure: Long head of Biceps Tenodesis

  • Active comparator
    Pectoralis Major Technique (PMT)

    If randomized to this group, the patient will receive an open subpectoral long head of biceps tenodesis technique whereby the long head of biceps is re-attached by suturing the biceps tendon into the pectoralis major tendon.

    Procedure: Long head of Biceps Tenodesis

Interventions

  • ProcedureLong head of Biceps Tenodesis

    Patients will be randomized into two different groups to compare biceps tenodesis techniques

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Change in Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Score (LHB)

    The LHB score is a composite endpoint (maximum 100 points) that evaluates 'biceps pain and muscle cramps', 'cosmesis', and 'flexion strength at the elbow'. It is an outcome score specific for biceps tendon pathology. The score range is 0-100, with a higher score representing better function. The values represent the scores at 3 and 6 months, not a change of values from Baseline to 3 and 6 months.

    Time frame: This score obtained pre-operatively, and post-operatively at 3 months, 6 months, which are reported.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Change in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)

    The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) consists of a straight line with the endpoints defining extreme limits such as 'no pain at all' and 'pain as bad as it could be'. The patient is asked to mark his pain level on the line between the two endpoints. "0" is no pain and "10" is the worst pain. The values represent the scores at 3 and 6 months, not a change of values from Baseline to 3 and 6 months.

    Time frame: This score obtained pre-operatively, and post-operatively at 3 months, 6 months, which are reported.

  2. Change in Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Score (DASH)

    The disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) questionnaire is a self-administered region-specific outcome instrument developed as a measure of self-rated upper-extremity disability and symptoms. The DASH consists mainly of a 30-item disability/symptom scale, scored 0 (no disability) to 100. The values represent the scores at 3 and 6 months, not a change of values from Baseline to 3 and 6 months.

    Time frame: This score obtained pre-operatively, and post-operatively at 3 months, 6 months, which are reported.

  3. Change in Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE)

    The Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) is a simple, one-question patient-reported outcome measure (PROM). Scoring is 1 to 100, with 100 being the highest function/no pain score. The values represent the scores at 3 and 6 months, not a change of values from Baseline to 3 and 6 months.

    Time frame: This score obtained pre-operatively, and post-operatively at 3 months, 6 months, which are reported.

  4. Change in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Shoulder Score

    The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Score (ASES) is a mixed outcome reporting measure, applicable for use in all patients with shoulder pathology regardless of their specific diagnosis. The ASES score contains a physician-rated and patient-rated section; however, only the pain visual analog scale (VAS) and 10 functional questions are typically used to tabulate the reported ASES score. The total score - 100 maximum points - is weighted 50% for pain and 50% for function. A score of 100 represents a better outcome and a score of 0 represents a worse outcome. The values represent the scores at 3 and 6 months, not a change of values from Baseline to 3 and 6 months.

    Time frame: This score obtained pre-operatively, and post-operatively at 3 months, 6 months, which are reported.

06

Results

Posted Apr 29, 2021
Limitations and caveats
Early termination of study due to COVID-19 and later the departure of PI from institution.

Participant flow

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestonePectoralis Major Technique (PMT)Suture Anchor Technique (SA)
Started22
Completed00
Not completed22
Withdrew: Lost to follow-up22

Outcome measures

PrimaryChange in Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Score (LHB)

The LHB score is a composite endpoint (maximum 100 points) that evaluates 'biceps pain and muscle cramps', 'cosmesis', and 'flexion strength at the elbow'. It is an outcome score specific for biceps tendon pathology. The score range is 0-100, with a higher score representing better function. The values represent the scores at 3 and 6 months, not a change of values from Baseline to 3 and 6 months.

Time frame:
This score obtained pre-operatively, and post-operatively at 3 months, 6 months, which are reported.
Reported as:
Median · units on a scale
Change in Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Score (LHB)
units on a scalePectoralis Major Technique (PMT)Suture Anchor Technique (SA)
3 Month Data57.5 (30 to 85)89 (89 to 89)
6 Month Data—94 (94 to 94)
SecondaryChange in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)

The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) consists of a straight line with the endpoints defining extreme limits such as 'no pain at all' and 'pain as bad as it could be'. The patient is asked to mark his pain level on the line between the two endpoints. "0" is no pain and "10" is the worst pain. The values represent the scores at 3 and 6 months, not a change of values from Baseline to 3 and 6 months.

Time frame:
This score obtained pre-operatively, and post-operatively at 3 months, 6 months, which are reported.
Reported as:
Median · score on a scale
Change in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)
score on a scaleSuture Anchor Technique (SA)Pectoralis Major Technique (PMT)
3 Month Data3 (3 to 3)5.50 (2 to 9)
6 Month Data2 (2 to 2)—
SecondaryChange in Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Score (DASH)

The disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) questionnaire is a self-administered region-specific outcome instrument developed as a measure of self-rated upper-extremity disability and symptoms. The DASH consists mainly of a 30-item disability/symptom scale, scored 0 (no disability) to 100. The values represent the scores at 3 and 6 months, not a change of values from Baseline to 3 and 6 months.

Time frame:
This score obtained pre-operatively, and post-operatively at 3 months, 6 months, which are reported.
Reported as:
Median · score on a scale
Change in Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Score (DASH)
score on a scaleSuture Anchor Technique (SA)Pectoralis Major Technique (PMT)
3 Month Data28 (28 to 28)51 (6 to 96)
6 Month Data10 (10 to 10)—
SecondaryChange in Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE)

The Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) is a simple, one-question patient-reported outcome measure (PROM). Scoring is 1 to 100, with 100 being the highest function/no pain score. The values represent the scores at 3 and 6 months, not a change of values from Baseline to 3 and 6 months.

Time frame:
This score obtained pre-operatively, and post-operatively at 3 months, 6 months, which are reported.
Reported as:
Median · units on a scale
Change in Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE)
units on a scaleSuture Anchor Technique (SA)Pectoralis Major Technique (PMT)
3 Month Data50 (50 to 50)52.5 (7 to 98)
6 Month Data70 (70 to 70)—
SecondaryChange in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Shoulder Score

The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Score (ASES) is a mixed outcome reporting measure, applicable for use in all patients with shoulder pathology regardless of their specific diagnosis. The ASES score contains a physician-rated and patient-rated section; however, only the pain visual analog scale (VAS) and 10 functional questions are typically used to tabulate the reported ASES score. The total score - 100 maximum points - is weighted 50% for pain and 50% for function. A score of 100 represents a better outcome and a score of 0 represents a worse outcome. The values represent the scores at 3 and 6 months, not a change of values from Baseline to 3 and 6 months.

Time frame:
This score obtained pre-operatively, and post-operatively at 3 months, 6 months, which are reported.
Reported as:
Median · score on a scale
Change in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Shoulder Score
score on a scaleSuture Anchor Technique (SA)Pectoralis Major Technique (PMT)
3 Month Data65 (65 to 65)49.2 (16.7 to 81.7)
6 Month Data78.3 (78.3 to 78.3)—

Adverse events

Collected over Adverse event data was reviewed at each study visit during course of study. Six months was the maximum that patients were followed.. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Suture Anchor Technique (SA)0/2 (0%)0/2 (0%)0/2 (0%)
Pectoralis Major Technique (PMT)0/2 (0%)0/2 (0%)0/2 (0%)

Baseline characteristics

Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)Suture Anchor Technique (SA)Pectoralis Major Technique (PMT)Total
Median51 (41 to 61)43 (41 to 45)47 (41 to 61)
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Suture Anchor Technique (SA)Pectoralis Major Technique (PMT)Total
Female123
Male101
Race (NIH/OMB)
Race (NIH/OMB)(Participants)Suture Anchor Technique (SA)Pectoralis Major Technique (PMT)Total
American Indian or Alaska Native000
Asian000
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander000
Black or African American123
White101
More than one race000
Unknown or Not Reported000
The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Score (ASES)
The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Score (ASES)(scores on a scale)Suture Anchor Technique (SA)Pectoralis Major Technique (PMT)Total
Median23.3 (6.67 to 40)25.0 (15 to 35)25 (6.67 to 40)
The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score (DASH)
The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score (DASH)(scores on a scale)Suture Anchor Technique (SA)Pectoralis Major Technique (PMT)Total
Median49.5 (45 to 54)62 (32 to 92)49.5 (32 to 92)
Visual Analog Scale (VAS)
Visual Analog Scale (VAS)(score on a scale)Suture Anchor Technique (SA)Pectoralis Major Technique (PMT)Total
Median8.5 (7 to 10)9 (8 to 10)9 (7 to 10)
Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE)
Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE)(score on a scale)Suture Anchor Technique (SA)Pectoralis Major Technique (PMT)Total
Median35 (30 to 40)12.5 (0 to 25)27.5 (0 to 40)
Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Score (LHB)
Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Score (LHB)(scores on a scale)Suture Anchor Technique (SA)Pectoralis Major Technique (PMT)Total
Median80 (80 to 80)38 (34 to 42)42 (34 to 80)
07

Study locations

3 sites
  • Saint Louis University
    Saint Louis, Missouri 63110, United States
  • SSM Health - Saint Louis University Hospital
    Saint Louis, Missouri 63110, United States
  • SSM Health - St. Mary's Hospital
    Saint Louis, Missouri 63110, United States
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Abbot AE, Li X, Busconi BD. Arthroscopic treatment of concomitant superior labral anterior posterior (SLAP) lesions and rotator cuff tears in patients over the age of 45 years. Am J Sports Med. 2009 Jul;37(7):1358-62. doi: 10.1177/0363546509331940. Epub 2009 Apr 13. PubMed 19364887 ↗
  • Ahmed M, Young BT, Bledsoe G, Cutuk A, Kaar SG. Biomechanical comparison of long head of biceps tenodesis with interference screw and biceps sling soft tissue techniques. Arthroscopy. 2013 Jul;29(7):1157-63. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2013.04.001. Epub 2013 May 29. PubMed 23725678 ↗
  • Chen CH, Hsu KY, Chen WJ, Shih CH. Incidence and severity of biceps long head tendon lesion in patients with complete rotator cuff tears. J Trauma. 2005 Jun;58(6):1189-93. doi: 10.1097/01.ta.0000170052.84544.34. PubMed 15995469 ↗
  • Chung SW, Oh JH, Gong HS, Kim JY, Kim SH. Factors affecting rotator cuff healing after arthroscopic repair: osteoporosis as one of the independent risk factors. Am J Sports Med. 2011 Oct;39(10):2099-107. doi: 10.1177/0363546511415659. Epub 2011 Aug 3. PubMed 21813440 ↗
  • Golish SR, Caldwell PE 3rd, Miller MD, Singanamala N, Ranawat AS, Treme G, Pearson SE, Costic R, Sekiya JK. Interference screw versus suture anchor fixation for subpectoral tenodesis of the proximal biceps tendon: a cadaveric study. Arthroscopy. 2008 Oct;24(10):1103-8. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2008.05.005. Epub 2008 Jun 16. PubMed 19028161 ↗
  • Habermeyer P, Magosch P, Pritsch M, Scheibel MT, Lichtenberg S. Anterosuperior impingement of the shoulder as a result of pulley lesions: a prospective arthroscopic study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004 Jan-Feb;13(1):5-12. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2003.09.013. PubMed 14735066 ↗
  • Hsu AR, Ghodadra NS, Provencher MT, Lewis PB, Bach BR. Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: a review of clinical outcomes and biomechanical results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Mar;20(2):326-32. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2010.08.019. Epub 2010 Nov 4. PubMed 21051241 ↗
  • Koh KH, Ahn JH, Kim SM, Yoo JC. Treatment of biceps tendon lesions in the setting of rotator cuff tears: prospective cohort study of tenotomy versus tenodesis. Am J Sports Med. 2010 Aug;38(8):1584-90. doi: 10.1177/0363546510364053. Epub 2010 Jun 15. PubMed 20551285 ↗
  • Oh JH, Kim SH, Ji HM, Jo KH, Bin SW, Gong HS. Prognostic factors affecting anatomic outcome of rotator cuff repair and correlation with functional outcome. Arthroscopy. 2009 Jan;25(1):30-9. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2008.08.010. Epub 2008 Oct 10. PubMed 19111216 ↗
  • Oh JH, Lee YH, Kim SH, Park JS, Seo HJ, Kim W, Park HB. Comparison of Treatments for Superior Labrum-Biceps Complex Lesions With Concomitant Rotator Cuff Repair: A Prospective, Randomized, Comparative Analysis of Debridement, Biceps Tenotomy, and Biceps Tenodesis. Arthroscopy. 2016 Jun;32(6):958-67. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2015.11.036. Epub 2016 Feb 23. PubMed 26921128 ↗
  • Park JS, Kim SH, Jung HJ, Lee YH, Oh JH. A Prospective Randomized Study Comparing the Interference Screw and Suture Anchor Techniques for Biceps Tenodesis. Am J Sports Med. 2017 Feb;45(2):440-448. doi: 10.1177/0363546516667577. Epub 2016 Oct 22. PubMed 28146397 ↗
  • Pogorzelski J, Horan MP, Hussain ZB, Vap A, Fritz EM, Millett PJ. Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis for Treatment of Isolated Type II SLAP Lesions in a Young and Active Population. Arthroscopy. 2018 Feb;34(2):371-376. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.07.021. Epub 2017 Sep 9. PubMed 28899638 ↗
  • Ramos CH, Coelho JC. Biomechanical evaluation of the long head of the biceps brachii tendon fixed by three techniques: a sheep model. Rev Bras Ortop. 2016 Dec 30;52(1):52-60. doi: 10.1016/j.rboe.2016.12.008. eCollection 2017 Jan-Feb. PubMed 28194382 ↗
  • Scheibel M, Schroder RJ, Chen J, Bartsch M. Arthroscopic soft tissue tenodesis versus bony fixation anchor tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon. Am J Sports Med. 2011 May;39(5):1046-52. doi: 10.1177/0363546510390777. Epub 2011 Jan 21. PubMed 21257843 ↗
  • Walch G, Edwards TB, Boulahia A, Nove-Josserand L, Neyton L, Szabo I. Arthroscopic tenotomy of the long head of the biceps in the treatment of rotator cuff tears: clinical and radiographic results of 307 cases. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005 May-Jun;14(3):238-46. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2004.07.008. PubMed 15889020 ↗
  • Zehnder Sw, Kaar SG, Joy E. Transpectoral Biceps Sling Tenodesis: Surgical Technique. Tech Should Surg. 2011;12: 32-35.

Study documents

  • Protocol and statistical analysis plan · Mar 5, 2019
  • Informed consent form · Mar 19, 2019

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03529162
Lead sponsor
St. Louis University
Responsible party
Howard M Place (Department Chair, St. Louis University) — Principal investigator
First posted
May 18, 2018
Start date
Oct 19, 2018
Primary completion
Jan 27, 2020
Completion
Jan 27, 2020
Results posted
Apr 29, 2021
Last update
Apr 29, 2021

Study contacts

Christopher Kim, MD
principal investigator · St. Louis University

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is terminated, as verified in Apr 2021. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion