LinkedInXFacebook
Subscribe
Orthopedics This Week
  • My Feed
  • |Posts
  • |Events
  • |MSK Innovations
  • |Power Rankings
  • |Masterclasses
  • |Technology Awards
  • Press Releases
  • |Advertising
  • |Job Board
  • Spine
  • ◆Joints
  • ◆Upper Extremities
  • ◆Foot & Ankle
  • ◆Sports Medicine
  • ◆Pain Mgmt
  • ◆Trauma
  • ◆Biologics
  • ◆Technology
  • ◆People
  • ◆Company News
  • ◆Legal & Regulatory
Home/Large Joints and Extremities/Biceps Tenodesis vs SLAP Repair for Type II SLAP Tears
Large Joints and Extremities

Biceps Tenodesis vs SLAP Repair for Type II SLAP Tears

October 27, 2021 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

Secondary#bicepstenodesis#slaprepair#typeIIslaptears

In active-duty military patients younger than 35 years with type II superior labral anterior-posterior tears, biceps tenodesis is more effective in improving pain and function than superior labral anterior-posterior repair, according to new study data.

“Biceps tenodesis has been suggested as a superior surgical technique compared with isolated labral repair for superior labral anterior-posterior tears in patients older than 35 years. The superiority of this procedure in younger patients, however, is yet to be determined,” the researchers of “Biceps Tenodesis as an Attractive Alternative to Superior Labral Anterior-Posterior (SLAP) Repair for Type II SLAP Lesions in Active-Duty Military Patients Younger Than 35 Years” wrote.

In the study, which was published online on October 21, 2021 in The American Journal of Sports Medicine, the researchers sought to compare the outcomes of arthroscopic superior labral anterior-posterior repair with those of arthroscopic-assisted subpectoral biceps tenodesis.

To do this, they compared preoperative and postoperative evaluations with a minimum 5-year follow-up. Critical score values included the visual analog scale, the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons shoulder score. A total of 48 patients were included in the study.

Overall, the preoperative patient age (p = .3639), forward flexion (p = .8214), external rotation (p = .5134), visual analog scale pain score (p = .4487), single assessment numeric evaluation score (p = .6614), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons shoulder score (p = .6519) did not vary significantly between the two groups.

By a minimum of 5 years post-op, both groups achieved statistically significant increases in function and reduction in pain, the data shows. However, the patients in the tenodesis group, had lower pain (1.3 vs. 2.6, respectively; p = .0358) and higher single assessment numeric evaluation score (84.0 vs. 63.3, respectively; p = .001) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon (85.7 vs. 75.4, respectively; p = .0342) scores than the repair group.

In addition, the failure rate was 20.0% in the repair group versus 0.0% in the tenodesis group (p = .0234).

“Active-duty military patients younger than 35 years with type II superior labral anterior-posterior tears had more predictable improvement in pain, better functional outcomes, and lower failure rates after biceps tenodesis compared with superior labral anterior-posterior repair for type II superior labral anterior-posterior tears,” the researchers wrote.

Advertisement

“Overall, the results of this study indicate that arthroscopic-assisted subpectoral biceps tenodesis is superior to arthroscopic superior labral anterior-posterior tears in military patients younger than 35 years.”

The authors of the study included, Nata Parnes, M.D., Hunter Czajkowski, and Michael J. DeFranco, M.D. of Carthage Area Hospital in Carthage, New York as well as John C. Dunn, M.D., and John P. Scanaliato, M.D. of William Beaumont Army Medical Center in El Paso, Texas. Claire K. Green, B.S., of George Washington University School of Medicine in Washington, District of Columbia also contributed to the study.

React:

Discussion

14
DS
Dr. Sarah MitchellOrthopedic Surgeon · Mayo Clinic

This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?

8
JT
James Thornton, MDSpine Fellow · HSS

Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.

5
RP
R. PatelSports Medicine · Stanford

We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.

Join the conversation

Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.

Subscribe

Get Full Access

Read every OTW article and join member discussions for $24.99/month.

Get Full Access

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Orthopedics This Week

The most trusted source in orthopedic industry news since 2005. Covering spine, joints, trauma, biologics, and the business of orthopedics.

A publication of RRY Publications, LLC

LinkedInXFacebook

Categories

  • Spine
  • Joints
  • Upper Extremities
  • Foot & Ankle
  • Sports Medicine
  • Pain Mgmt
  • Trauma
  • Biologics
  • Technology
  • People
  • Company News
  • Legal & Regulatory

Resources

  • Subscribe
  • Community Posts
  • Job Board
  • Press Release Opportunities
  • Power Rankings
  • About OTW
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

Get Full Access

Unlimited articles, community posts, and Power Rankings.

Get Full Access

Plans start at $24.99/mo · Annual saves 20%

© 2026 Orthopedics This Week · RRY Publications, LLC

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCookie Policy