Evaluation of Rotator Cuff Repair With and Without Concomitant Biceps Intervention: A Retrospective Review of Patient Outcomes

Background: Biceps tendon pathology is common in patients with rotator cuff tears. Leaving biceps pathology untreated in rotator cuff repairs (RCRs) may lead to suboptimal outcomes. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to compare clinical outcomes between patients who underwent isolated RCR versus patients who underwent RCR with concomitant biceps treatment. It was hypothesized that there would be no difference in clinical outcomes between groups. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 244 patients who underwent RCR in 2016 were included. Patient characteristics, presence of concomitant biceps pathology, pre- and postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, rotator cuff failure, revision surgery, and complications were recorded. Results: There were no significant differences between patients who underwent isolated RCR (n = 143) and those who underwent RCR with biceps treatment (n = 101) at 2 years postoperatively in ASES scores (RCR, 81.5; RCR+biceps treatment, 79.5; P = .532), cuff failure rate (5.6% vs 4.0%; P = .760), revision RCR rate (3.5% vs 2.0%; P = .703), or complication rate (11.9% vs 5.0%; P = .102). Furthermore, when comparing concomitant biceps tenotomy (n = 30) versus concomitant biceps tenodesis (n = 71), there were no differences in ASES scores ( P = .149), cuff failure rate ( P > .999), revision RCR rate ( P > .999), or complication rate ( P > .999) postoperatively. Finally, when comparing arthroscopic biceps tenodesis (n = 50) versus subpectoral biceps tenodesis (n = 21), there were no differences in ASES scores ( P > .592), cuff failure rate ( P > .999), revision RCR rate ( P = .507), or complication rate ( P > .999) 2 years postoperatively. Conclusion: Addressing biceps pathology when performing RCR resulted in similar rates of cuff failure, revision RCR, and complications, as well as a similar improvement in patient-reported outcomes when compared with isolated RCR at 2 years postoperatively. Furthermore, when comparing tenotomy versus tenodesis and arthroscopic versus subpectoral tenodesis, comparable outcomes with regard to rate of rotator cuff repair failure, revision RCR, complications, and patient-reported outcomes were found.