Biceps Tenotomy and Tenodesis Show Moderately Robust Clinical Equivalence

The Clinical Dilemma of Long Head Biceps Pathology

Management of long head of the biceps tendon pathology remains a frequent challenge during arthroscopic rotator cuff or labral repairs, with surgeons often choosing between tenotomy and tenodesis [1, 2]. While tenotomy offers a technically simpler and faster recovery, it is associated with a significantly higher incidence of cosmetic Popeye deformity compared to tenodesis [3, 4]. Current clinical guidelines generally suggest that both procedures result in similar patient-reported outcomes and functional scores, leading many to view them as interchangeable in older or less active populations [5, 6]. However, the reliance on non-significant findings to claim equivalence has led to ongoing debate regarding the true stability of these comparative data [7, 8]. A new analysis now applies a statistical stress test to these randomized controlled trials to evaluate the reliability of their conclusions.

Stress-Testing Statistical Non-Significance

The researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis providing Level 1 evidence to scrutinize the perceived equivalence between biceps tenotomy and tenodesis. To evaluate the stability of existing data, the authors utilized the reverse continuous fragility index (rCFI), which is a statistical measure used to evaluate the relative robustness or fragility of nonstatistically significant findings in randomized controlled trials. In clinical terms, while a standard p-value may suggest no difference between two surgical techniques, the rCFI quantifies how many additional patients would need to be added to the trial to flip that result into a statistically significant difference. This metric allows clinicians to determine if a finding of no difference is a stable clinical reality or merely a result of a study being underpowered (having too few participants to detect a true difference). The search strategy for this analysis was comprehensive, involving a review of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from 2004 through September 2025. The researchers identified relevant literature using a specific combination of search terms, including biceps, biceps brachii, long head biceps, tenodesis, tenotomy, and Randomized controlled trial. To maintain high evidentiary standards, the inclusion criteria were strictly limited to randomized controlled trials that compared clinical outcomes of biceps tenodesis versus biceps tenotomy during shoulder arthroscopy. By focusing on these high-quality prospective studies, the meta-analysis aimed to provide a definitive assessment of whether the functional outcomes of these two procedures are truly interchangeable in a clinical setting. Beyond the primary index, the researchers also calculated the reverse continuous fragility quotient (a derivative value that accounts for the total study sample size to provide a standardized measure of robustness across different trials). They also meticulously recorded the loss to follow-up for each included study to ensure that patient attrition did not exceed the calculated rCFI, which would otherwise undermine the reliability of the statistical conclusions. For the practicing surgeon, this methodology serves as a stress test for clinical dogmas, identifying whether the evidence supporting the equivalence of tenotomy and tenodesis is sufficiently robust to guide surgical decision-making or if the current consensus rests on statistically thin margins.

Quantifying the Stability of Clinical Outcomes

The meta-analysis synthesized data from seven randomized controlled trials involving a total of 622 patients who underwent either biceps tenotomy or tenodesis during shoulder arthroscopy. To determine the stability of the finding that these two procedures yield similar results, the researchers calculated the mean reverse continuous fragility index (rCFI) of primary study outcomes, which was 17.7 (standard deviation, 8.6). This index represents the number of additional patients required to change a non-significant result into a statistically significant one. With a range of 4 to 26, the rCFI suggests that the current clinical consensus of equivalence is not easily overturned by minor fluctuations in data. For the practicing surgeon, these figures indicate that the choice between tenotomy and tenodesis is supported by a moderately robust body of evidence, as it would take a substantial influx of new, divergent data to suggest that one procedure is statistically superior to the other in terms of primary clinical outcomes. To further refine this assessment, the authors calculated the mean reverse fragility quotient, which was 0.227 (standard deviation, 0.104). This quotient is a standardized measure that accounts for the total study sample size, providing a more nuanced view of statistical robustness across trials of varying scales. By normalizing the rCFI against the number of participants, the researchers confirmed that the observed lack of difference between the two surgical techniques is consistent regardless of the individual study size. This level of statistical stability is particularly relevant when counseling patients on surgical options, as it reinforces the idea that both tenotomy and tenodesis are likely to result in comparable functional recovery. The data suggest that the decision can remain centered on patient-specific factors, such as the risk of a cosmetic deformity or the desire for a faster operative time, rather than a concern that one method is fundamentally less effective.

Tenodesis Trends and the Impact of Attrition

While the primary analysis suggests clinical equivalence, the application of the reverse continuous fragility index reveals a subtle trend toward superior functional metrics in the tenodesis cohorts. When the researchers calculated the reverse continuous fragility index, 4 of the 7 studies (57.14%) reported a now-significant outcome. In these 4 studies where the statistical threshold for significance was met through the index calculation, the tenodesis group had greater outcome scores compared with the tenotomy group. For the practicing surgeon, this suggests that while both procedures are generally comparable, tenodesis may lean toward better objective functional results in a majority of high-quality trials if the sample sizes were marginally larger. The reliability of these findings is further supported by an analysis of patient attrition, which can often undermine the validity of surgical trials. The total loss to follow-up across the studies was 55 patients, representing a mean loss to follow-up across all studies of 7.8. Critically, no studies reported a loss to follow-up that was greater than the calculated reverse continuous fragility index. This relationship is clinically significant because it indicates that the number of patients who dropped out of the trials was insufficient to overturn the observed results, thereby reinforcing the statistical stability of the reported outcomes and the conclusion of moderate robustness. In the specific clinical context of patients undergoing concomitant rotator cuff repair (a procedure performed alongside the biceps intervention), the evidence for equivalence remains similarly stable. For this subgroup, the mean reverse continuous fragility index was 18.25, indicating that more than 18 additional patients with specific outcomes would be required to change the non-significant finding into a significant one. Furthermore, the mean reverse fragility quotient for studies with concomitant rotator cuff repair was 0.163. These metrics provide clinicians with a data-driven basis for selecting either tenotomy or tenodesis during complex shoulder reconstructions, as the current evidence for similar outcomes in this population appears resistant to minor data fluctuations.

Clinical Implications for Surgical Selection

The meta-analysis of 7 studies involving 622 patients provides a statistical foundation for the clinical equivalence often observed between biceps tenotomy and tenodesis. By calculating the reverse continuous fragility index (a statistical measure used to evaluate the robustness of nonstatistically significant findings by determining how many patients would need to be added to reach a significant result), the researchers established a mean reverse continuous fragility index of 17.7 (SD, 8.6; range, 4-26). This specific metric indicates that the current body of evidence is not easily swayed by small changes in data or minor fluctuations in patient outcomes. Consequently, the authors concluded that the nonstatistically significant results of these trials show moderate robustness, suggesting that the lack of a clear functional advantage for one procedure over the other is a stable finding rather than an artifact of underpowered studies. For the practicing surgeon, these findings translate into increased confidence when tailoring the surgical approach to the individual patient. The mean reverse fragility quotient was 0.227 (SD, 0.104), a value that adjusts the fragility index for the total sample size of the studies to provide a standardized measure of stability. This quotient further reinforces the reliability of the data across the 622 patients analyzed. Because the number of patients lost to follow-up did not exceed the reverse continuous fragility index in any of the included trials, clinicians can be reasonably certain that the reported functional outcomes are representative of the treated populations. This statistical stability allows for surgical decision-making to be guided by patient-specific factors, such as the risk of a cosmetic deformity or the length of postoperative rehabilitation, with the knowledge that both techniques yield comparable clinical results.

References

1. Belk JW, Kraeutler M, Houck DA, Chrisman AN, Scillia A, McCarty E. Biceps Tenodesis versus Tenotomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Level I Randomized Controlled Trials.. Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery. 2020. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2020.11.012

2. Hartland A, Islam R, Teoh K, Rashid M. Clinical Effectiveness of Various Surgical Procedures Addressing Long Head of Biceps Pathology: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Surgery Protocols. 2021. doi:10.29337/ijsp.139

3. Ahmed AF, Toubasi A, Mahmoud SA, Ahmed GO, Dosari MAAA, Zikria B. Long head of biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Shoulder & Elbow. 2020. doi:10.1177/1758573220942923

4. MacDonald P, Verhulst F, McRae S, et al. Biceps Tenodesis Versus Tenotomy in the Treatment of Lesions of the Long Head of the Biceps Tendon in Patients Undergoing Arthroscopic Shoulder Surgery: A Prospective Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial. American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2020. doi:10.1177/0363546520912212

5. Heerspink FOL, Veen EJD, Dorrestijn O, et al. Update of guideline for diagnosis and treatment of subacromial pain syndrome: a multidisciplinary review by the Dutch Orthopedic Association Part 2: Operative considerations and treatment of various conditions related to subacromial pain syndrome.. Acta orthopaedica. 2026. doi:10.2340/17453674.2026.45410

6. Deurzen DFV, Yang KGA, Onstenk R, et al. Long Head of Biceps Tenotomy Is Not Inferior to Suprapectoral Tenodesis in Arthroscopic Repair of Nontraumatic Rotator Cuff Tears: A Multicenter, Non‐inferiority, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial. Arthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery. 2021. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2021.01.036

7. Vigié R, Bonnevialle N, Hao K, Berhouet J, Charrousset C. Tenotomy or tenodesis versus conservation of the long head of the biceps tendon in the repair of isolated supraspinatus tears: a systematic review of the literature.. 2023. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2023.103673

8. Elsayed M, Adawy A, Singer M, Shoulah S. long head of biceps tenodesis ; indications and techniques : systematic review. Benha Medical Journal. 2019. doi:10.21608/bmfj.2019.14328.1002