Hand & Upper Limb

Biceps Tenodesis / Tenotomy (LHB)

Surgical technique guide for Long Head of Biceps Tenodesis and Tenotomy — FRCS exam preparation

Core Procedure
intermediate
By OrthoVellum Medical Education Team

Reviewed by OrthoVellum Editorial Team

Editorial maintenance, source checking, and correction workflow • Published by OrthoVellum Medical Education Team

High-yield overview

Subpectoral or suprapectoral tenodesis | simple tenotomy | intermediate

Critical Danger Structures

Popeye Deformity (Tenotomy)

Mechanism: Following simple tenotomy the LHB retracts distally, and the biceps muscle belly accumulates in a characteristic ball deformity in the mid-upper arm. The tendon, released from its superior labral origin, no longer tethers the muscle proximally.

Incidence and patient impact: Reported Popeye rates after tenotomy vary widely (commonly about 20-40% in randomised trials, higher in muscular low-body-fat patients). Pooled meta-analysis confirms a roughly 3-fold higher risk than tenodesis (Hartland 2022, OR 0.29 favouring tenodesis). Often only a minority of patients are subjectively bothered, but it is the single most consistent difference between the two operations.

Prevention and patient selection: Tenodesis (lower Popeye rate) is the preferred operation when cosmesis is a concern; the subpectoral site gives the most reliable result by fixing the tendon distal to the groove at the musculotendinous junction. Discuss preoperatively with all patients — tenotomy remains appropriate for elderly, low-demand patients who accept the cosmetic change.

Supination / Flexion Strength (Tenotomy)

Mechanism: The combined biceps brachii is a forearm supinator (most powerful with the elbow flexed) and an elbow flexor. The long head contributes only a portion of total biceps force, with the short head, brachialis, brachioradialis and supinator providing the remainder.

Measured deficit: Contrary to older teaching, pooled randomised-trial data show NO statistically significant difference in cumulative elbow flexion strength or forearm supination strength between tenotomy and tenodesis (Zhou 2021 meta-analysis, PMID 33545991; Koh 2010 found equal elbow flexor power ratios, PMID 20551285). Any deficit is small, inconsistent across studies and often recovers as the muscle adapts.

Clinical relevance: Because measurable strength is largely preserved either way, the tenotomy-vs-tenodesis decision is driven mainly by Popeye cosmesis and (occasionally) cramping rather than by a large fixed strength loss. Tenodesis is still reasonable to recommend for a young high-demand manual worker who specifically prioritises symmetry and any marginal strength advantage.

Subpectoral vs Suprapectoral Approach

Subpectoral tenodesis: Working below the inferior border of the pectoralis major tendon. The LHB tendon is retrieved from the bicipital groove and fixed to the proximal humerus below the pectoralis insertion. Advantages: reliable cosmetic outcome, fixation remote from the pathological groove, lowest neurovascular hazard for posterior-cortex fixation (axillary nerve a mean 37mm away, musculocutaneous nerve 37mm, radial nerve 48mm; Sethi 2014). Drawback: a second axillary incision.

Suprapectoral tenodesis: Performed arthroscopically or through a small anterior incision, fixing the tendon in or just below the groove entrance. Advantages: no additional incision, single anaesthetic combined with arthroscopy. Drawbacks: tenodesis site remains near the pathological groove, and bicortical posterior-cortex drilling at this proximal level brings the AXILLARY nerve dangerously close (about 10mm; guide pin contacted the axillary nerve in 20% of cadaveric suprapectoral tenodeses, Sethi 2014, PMID 25193486) — avoid bicortical fixation here.

Tenodesis vs SLAP Repair — Decision

Age threshold: Older patients with Type II SLAP lesions have inferior outcomes with direct SLAP repair. Provencher 2013 (PMID 23460326) prospectively found a 37% failure rate after Type II SLAP repair with a 28% revision rate, and age over 36 years was the only independent predictor of failure (relative risk 3.45). The superior labrum loses biological healing potential with age.

Concomitant rotator cuff tear: Presence of a rotator cuff tear worsens the outcome of SLAP repair — favour tenodesis (or address the SLAP with tenodesis at the time of cuff repair).

Patient type: Overhead throwing athlete under 35 with isolated symptomatic Type II SLAP — consider SLAP repair (preserve native anatomy, superior labrum important for throwing mechanics). Non-throwing athlete, manual worker, or recreational patient over 35-40 — tenodesis preferred.

Exam answer: Know the age effect, the impact of rotator cuff pathology, the Provencher 2013 failure data, and the Boileau 2009 (PMID 19229046) series in which biceps tenodesis gave 87% return to sport versus only 20% after SLAP repair.

Bicipital Groove Pathology (SASD)

Association: LHB pathology rarely occurs in isolation. In greater than 90% of cases it coexists with subacromial-subdeltoid (SASD) bursitis, rotator cuff tear (especially subscapularis superior margin), or AC joint arthritis.

Bicipital tenosynovitis: Inflammation of the LHB within its synovial sheath in the groove. Presents as anterior shoulder pain, Yergason positive, Speed positive, tenderness in groove. On MRI: fluid in the bicipital sheath greater than 3mm, tendon oedema or partial tearing.

Surgical principle: Address concomitant pathology simultaneously — subacromial decompression, rotator cuff repair, or AC arthroplasty as indicated. Performing tenodesis/tenotomy in isolation without treating the source of bursitis will not relieve pain if the underlying problem is an untreated cuff tear or SASD.

Neurovascular Risk (Subpectoral / Suprapectoral)

Anatomy: The musculocutaneous nerve (lateral cord, C5-C7) enters the deep surface of coracobrachialis a variable distance distal to the coracoid. In cadaveric subpectoral tenodesis it lies a mean 37mm from the tenodesis site, with the radial nerve about 48mm away (Sethi 2014). The greatest neurovascular hazard is actually the AXILLARY nerve during proximal/suprapectoral posterior-cortex fixation, where it sits only about 10mm from the site.

Risk: Direct retraction or stretch injury to the musculocutaneous nerve, or — more importantly — injury to the axillary nerve from bicortical drilling at a proximal level. Musculocutaneous injury produces elbow flexion weakness and lateral forearm paraesthesia (via the lateral cutaneous nerve of the forearm).

Protection: Keep self-retaining retractors lateral and on bone or pectoralis major tendon, never on soft tissue medially; avoid aggressive medial retraction and limit retractor time. Identify the bicipital groove before placing the drill guide and do not drill medially. Avoid bicortical posterior-cortex fixation at the suprapectoral level (axillary nerve). Clinically apparent nerve injury after subpectoral tenodesis is uncommon (reported in the order of about 1%).

Mnemonic

TENOTOMYTENOTOMY — When Tenotomy is the RIGHT Choice

Mnemonic

TENODESISTENODESIS — When Tenodesis is the RIGHT Choice

Pathology Requiring Tenodesis or Tenotomy

LHB Pathology Spectrum

Bicipital tenosynovitis: Inflammation within the synovial sheath in the bicipital groove. Presents with anterior shoulder pain, positive Speed test (resisted forward flexion in supination with elbow extended), positive Yergason test (resisted supination against examiner with elbow flexed 90 degrees), groove tenderness on palpation.

LHB partial tear: Fraying or partial-thickness tearing in the groove or at the intertubercular entrance. MRI shows focal signal change, irregular contour, or partial defect. Often associated with subscapularis superior fibre tear (upper subscapularis tendon border attaches partly to bicipital groove sheath).

LHB instability (medial subluxation): Subscapularis tear or rotator interval disruption allows the LHB to sublux or dislocate medially over the lesser tuberosity. Presents with clicking on rotation. Associated with subscapularis tear in virtually all cases — treat the subscapularis AND the biceps.

SLAP lesions (Superior Labrum Anterior to Posterior): Snyder classification Types I-IV. Type II (most common operative type): detachment of the superior labrum and LHB anchor from the supraglenoid tubercle. Critical decision: repair vs tenodesis.

Tenotomy vs Tenodesis — Decision Framework

Tenotomy — appropriate for:

  • Older, low-demand, non-manual patient
  • Patient accepting of a possible Popeye deformity (explicitly counselled and accepts)
  • Frail patient where the shorter operative time is advantageous
  • Bilateral shoulder surgery in elderly patient (minimise additional surgical time)
  • Associated massive irreparable rotator cuff tear (concomitant tenotomy during cuff debridement)

Tenodesis — appropriate for:

  • Younger, active lifestyle, manual worker
  • Patient concerned about cosmesis (Popeye deformity unacceptable)
  • Patient who specifically prioritises arm symmetry and contour
  • SLAP II in patient over 35-40 (tenodesis preferred to SLAP repair)
  • Young patient with isolated LHB pathology and intact cuff

Key Evidence

Koh et al. 2010 (PMID 20551285): Prospective cohort of 90 patients over 55 years with a rotator cuff tear plus LHB lesion (tear over 30%, subluxation/dislocation, or degenerative Type II SLAP); 45 tenodesis versus 45 tenotomy. Popeye deformity occurred in 9% of the tenodesis group versus 27% of the tenotomy group (P = 0.04). There was NO significant difference in cramping pain or in elbow flexor power ratio (0.92 tenodesis vs 0.94 tenotomy). ASES and Constant scores improved similarly in both groups. Conclusion: suture-anchor tenodesis produces less Popeye deformity, but no other clinical variable differs.

Boileau et al. 2009 (PMID 19229046): Cohort of 25 patients with an isolated Type II SLAP lesion — 10 SLAP repairs (mean age 37) versus 15 arthroscopic biceps tenodeses (mean age 52). 87% (13/15) returned to their previous level of sport after tenodesis versus only 20% (2/10) after SLAP repair (P = 0.01); the Constant score improved more after tenodesis. Four failed SLAP repairs were successfully salvaged by subsequent tenodesis. Supports tenodesis as an effective alternative to repair for Type II SLAP (groups differed in age, so findings should be confirmed).

Mazzocca et al. 2005 (PMID 16325079): Cadaveric biomechanical comparison of four tenodesis fixation methods (subpectoral bone tunnel, arthroscopic suture anchor, subpectoral interference screw, arthroscopic interference screw). The subpectoral interference screw showed the LEAST cyclic displacement (1.5mm), but there was NO statistically significant difference in ultimate failure load between methods (all roughly 165-252 N). All specimens failed at the tenodesis site.

Mazzocca et al. 2008 (PMID 18697951): Prospective clinical case series of subpectoral biceps tenodesis with an interference screw — 41 of 50 patients followed (mean age 50, mean 29 months). Significant improvement in ASES, Constant, Rowe and SANE scores, with only one fixation failure (tendon pull-out producing a Popeye deformity). Patients with a coexistent rotator cuff lesion had significantly lower ASES scores, reinforcing the need to treat concomitant pathology.

Provencher et al. 2013 (PMID 23460326): Prospective analysis of 179 Type II SLAP repairs in a young active cohort. 37% met failure criteria with a 28% revision rate; age over 36 years was the only independent predictor of failure (relative risk 3.45). Establishes the high failure rate of SLAP repair and the age effect that underpins the tenodesis decision.

Pooled randomised-trial evidence (Hartland 2022, PMID 36220319; Zhou 2021, PMID 33545991): Meta-analyses of randomised trials (860 patients across 11 RCTs, and 9 RCTs respectively) confirm that tenotomy and tenodesis give equivalent patient-reported function, pain and elbow flexion/supination strength. Tenodesis reliably reduces Popeye deformity (OR about 0.29); tenotomy has a shorter operative time.


Surgical Imaging

Intraoperative open subpectoral biceps tenodesis showing exposed bicipital groove and tendon
Open subpectoral biceps tenodesis: the bicipital groove is exposed through a 3–4cm incision at the inferior border of the pectoralis major. A blue suture-anchor is visible securing the LHB tendon to the proximal humerus. The subpectoral position (below the pectoralis minor insertion) places the tenodesis at the myotendinous junction, preventing bicipital cramping.Credit: Narbona-Carceles J et al., Orthop J Sports Med 2016 (PMC4871205) — CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Arthroscopic view showing long head of biceps tendon LHBT and supraspinatus labelled in the glenohumeral joint
Arthroscopic assessment of LHB pathology: the long head biceps tendon (LHBT) is identified in the rotator interval, adjacent to the supraspinatus tendon. Fraying, inflammation, and greater than 25% tear of the LHBT at the bicipital groove entrance are indications for tenodesis rather than tenotomy in active patients.Credit: Narbona-Carceles J et al., Orthop J Sports Med 2016 (PMC4871205) — CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Surgeon holding interference screw with two blue guidewires for biceps tenodesis fixation
Interference screw fixation technique for biceps tenodesis: a small-diameter interference screw (held by surgeon) is loaded over two blue guidewires. The screw is advanced into the bone socket to compress and lock the LHB tendon stump against the tunnel wall — providing immediate fixation with resistance to pullout forces comparable to the native biceps anchor.Credit: Mazzocca AD et al., Orthop J Sports Med 2014 (PMC4555622) — CC BY-NC-ND 3.0

Clinical Decision Scenarios

Use these scenarios to practise clinical reasoning and management decisions

CLINICAL SCENARIOStandard

CLINICAL PROMPT

"A 55-year-old overhead worker — a carpenter specialising in roof frame construction — presents with 8 months of right anterior shoulder pain localised to the bicipital groove. MRI shows moderate LHB tenosynovitis and a partial-thickness intrasubstance tear of the LHB with no rotator cuff tear. He is right-hand dominant and heavily relies on forceful supination for his work. He asks your advice: should he have a tenotomy or tenodesis? Walk me through your decision-making."

PRACTICAL APPROACH
This patient's profile favours tenodesis over tenotomy, and I would recommend a right shoulder LHB subpectoral tenodesis. My reasoning: First, I must be honest about the evidence — pooled randomised-trial data show tenotomy and tenodesis give equivalent pain relief, function and elbow flexion/supination strength, with the only consistent difference being a higher Popeye deformity rate after tenotomy (Hartland 2022, PMID 36220319; Zhou 2021, PMID 33545991). So I would NOT justify tenodesis on a large supination-strength argument, which the highest-level evidence does not support. The real driver here is cosmesis and patient preference. Second, cosmesis and Popeye deformity. Popeye deformity is the characteristic and far more common consequence of tenotomy (roughly 3-fold higher than tenodesis; 27% vs 9% in Koh 2010, PMID 20551285). A 55-year-old active working man who values arm symmetry and works in a physical environment is more likely to be bothered by it, and tenodesis — particularly the subpectoral site — gives the most reliable contour. Third, age and tissue quality. At 55 with no rotator cuff tear he is a good candidate for a durable tenodesis. My operative plan: combined arthroscopic assessment plus subpectoral tenodesis. Arthroscopic first — treat any subacromial bursitis, confirm LHB pathology, assess the rotator interval and superior subscapularis fibres (commonly involved with LHB instability). Transect the LHB at the groove entrance arthroscopically. Then the subpectoral approach: 3-4cm incision in the axillary fold, retrieve the LHB, whipstitch with a No. 2 non-absorbable suture, prepare a socket in the proximal humerus below pectoralis major, and fix with an interference screw (or cortical button). Keep retractors lateral to protect the musculocutaneous nerve. Sling 6 weeks, no resisted elbow flexion or forced supination for 6 weeks, return to carpentry around 4-5 months.
CLINICAL SCENARIOStandard

CLINICAL PROMPT

"Three weeks following an arthroscopic biceps tenotomy (combined with subacromial decompression), your patient returns to clinic. He reports he is generally pleased with the reduction in anterior shoulder pain, but is distressed by a noticeable lump in his mid-upper arm and has noticed his right biceps looks different from his left. On examination there is a visible muscle belly deformity in the mid-upper arm consistent with Popeye deformity. He says this was not discussed with him before the operation. How do you manage this situation?"

PRACTICAL APPROACH
This scenario involves both a clinical finding (Popeye deformity post-tenotomy) and a significant patient safety and communication concern (deformity not discussed preoperatively). I will address both. Clinically, the Popeye deformity is a well-recognised and common consequence of tenotomy — substantially more frequent than after tenodesis (about 27% vs 9% in Koh 2010, and roughly 3-fold higher in meta-analysis). After tenotomy the LHB retracts distally and the biceps muscle belly accumulates in the mid-upper arm as a visible ball. This is permanent and cannot be corrected by physiotherapy. Functional assessment: I would formally test elbow flexion strength (expected to be near normal), forearm supination strength (also usually well preserved — pooled trial data show no significant deficit versus tenodesis), and check for bicipital cramping with resisted flexion. Most patients adapt functionally well and find the deformity cosmetically acceptable once explained. However, this patient is distressed and did not consent to this outcome. The communication and consent issue is serious. The Popeye deformity is a commonly expected consequence of tenotomy and must be explicitly discussed preoperatively — not as an unusual complication but as a common expected finding. If the notes do not document this discussion, there is a medicolegal concern. I would: 1) Acknowledge the patient's distress genuinely and sincerely. 2) Explain the deformity in clear lay terms — what has happened, why, and that it is an expected outcome of the procedure. 3) Explain the functional implications honestly, reassuring him that strength is usually well preserved. 4) Discuss options: most commonly reassurance and physiotherapy. If the deformity is truly functionally disabling (persistent cramping), revision to subpectoral tenodesis is technically feasible but carries its own risks and may not fully correct the appearance. 5) Document the discussion. As a reviewing surgeon I would not pre-judge the operating surgeon, but would ensure the patient receives full information now and time to process it.
CLINICAL SCENARIOStandard

CLINICAL PROMPT

"A 40-year-old right-handed recreational rock climber is reviewed in your clinic with right shoulder pain following a forceful pulling injury during a difficult climb. MRI arthrogram confirms a Type II SLAP lesion with detachment of the superior labrum and LHB anchor from the supraglenoid tubercle. He is otherwise fit and well with no other shoulder pathology. His shoulder is not painful at rest but he cannot climb at grade 7 (his previous level). Should you repair the SLAP or perform a tenodesis, and why?"

PRACTICAL APPROACH
This is the classic clinical dilemma for Type II SLAP management: SLAP repair versus biceps tenodesis. This patient is 40 years old — at the age threshold where the evidence shifts. The key data are Boileau et al. 2009 (PMID 19229046), in which arthroscopic biceps tenodesis for isolated Type II SLAP gave 87% return to previous sport versus only 20% after SLAP repair, and Provencher et al. 2013 (PMID 23460326), a prospective series of 179 Type II SLAP repairs with a 37% failure rate and a 28% revision rate, in which age over 36 years was the only independent predictor of failure (relative risk 3.45). The biological reason is that the superior labrum loses healing potential with age — fibrocartilage quality and vascularity decline, so the repair is more likely to fail. SLAP repair in older patients also tends to cause stiffness from capsular tightening, which is particularly detrimental for a climber needing full overhead reach. For a 40-year-old recreational rock climber with Type II SLAP and no other pathology, I would recommend arthroscopic biceps tenodesis rather than SLAP repair. My reasoning: 1) Age 40 is above the threshold (over 36-40) where SLAP repair outcomes deteriorate markedly. 2) No rotator cuff tear, which is favourable (a concomitant cuff tear makes SLAP repair outcomes even worse). 3) Rock climbing is a high-demand overhead activity — stiffness from a SLAP repair would directly impair performance, and tenodesis avoids that capsular tightening. 4) The failure/revision rate of SLAP repair in this age group is high (around a third in Provencher), whereas tenodesis reliably returns patients to sport. The counter-argument: under age 35 in a competitive overhead throwing athlete, SLAP repair is preferred to preserve native anatomy and the superior labrum important for throwing kinetics. At exactly 40 I would lean towards tenodesis but have a careful shared decision-making discussion presenting both options with their evidence; once a patient understands the higher SLAP-repair failure rate at this age, most choose tenodesis. My preferred technique: subpectoral tenodesis to maximise cosmetic outcome and minimise Popeye deformity in this active, likely muscular patient. Return to climbing typically 4-6 months.

Biceps Tenodesis / Tenotomy — Exam Day Summary

Clinical summary

Key Evidence

Treatment of biceps tendon lesions in the setting of rotator cuff tears: prospective cohort study of tenotomy versus tenodesis

Level II (Prospective cohort)
Koh KH, Ahn JH, Kim SM, Yoo JCAmerican Journal of Sports Medicine
Clinical Implication: Tenodesis reduces Popeye deformity, but pain relief, function and elbow flexion strength are equivalent — supporting tenotomy as a reasonable option in older, low-demand patients who accept the cosmetic risk.

Clinical effectiveness of tenotomy versus tenodesis for long head of biceps pathology: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Level I (Meta-analysis of RCTs)
Hartland AW, Islam R, Teoh KH, Rashid MSBMJ Open
Clinical Implication: At the highest level of evidence, the only consistent advantage of tenodesis is a lower rate of cosmetic deformity; tenotomy offers a shorter, simpler operation with otherwise equivalent outcomes.

Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis for lesions of the long head of the biceps tendon: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Level I (Meta-analysis of RCTs)
Zhou P, Liu J, Deng X, Li ZMedicine (Baltimore)
Clinical Implication: Directly refutes the older teaching of a large fixed supination-strength deficit after tenotomy — pooled RCT data show no significant strength difference, so the decision turns on cosmesis and operative time.

Arthroscopic treatment of isolated type II SLAP lesions: biceps tenodesis as an alternative to reinsertion

Level III (Cohort study)
Boileau P, Parratte S, Chuinard C, Roussanne Y, Shia D, Bicknell RAmerican Journal of Sports Medicine
Clinical Implication: Biceps tenodesis is an effective alternative to repair for type II SLAP lesions and a salvage for failed repair — particularly relevant in older, non-throwing patients.

A prospective analysis of 179 type 2 superior labrum anterior and posterior repairs: outcomes and factors associated with success and failure

Level III (Prospective analysis)
Provencher MT, McCormick F, Dewing C, McIntire S, Solomon DAmerican Journal of Sports Medicine
Clinical Implication: Establishes the high failure rate of SLAP repair and the strong age effect that underpins the shift to tenodesis in patients over the mid-30s.

Safety of open suprapectoral and subpectoral biceps tenodesis: an anatomic assessment of risk for neurologic injury

Level V (Cadaveric anatomic safety)
Sethi PM, Vadasdi K, Greene RT, Vitale MA, Duong M, Miller SRJournal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
Clinical Implication: The axillary nerve — not the musculocutaneous nerve — is the structure most at risk; bicortical posterior-cortex fixation at the suprapectoral level should be avoided, and subpectoral fixation is the safest with respect to nerves.

References

  1. 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;38(8):1584-1590. PMID: 20551285

  2. Boileau P, Parratte S, Chuinard C, Roussanne Y, Shia D, Bicknell R. Arthroscopic treatment of isolated type II SLAP lesions: biceps tenodesis as an alternative to reinsertion. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(5):929-936. PMID: 19229046

  3. Mazzocca AD, Bicos J, Santangelo S, Romeo AA, Arciero RA. The biomechanical evaluation of four fixation techniques for proximal biceps tenodesis. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(11):1296-1306. PMID: 16325079

  4. Mazzocca AD, Cote MP, Arciero CL, Romeo AA, Arciero RA. Clinical outcomes after subpectoral biceps tenodesis with an interference screw. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(10):1922-1929. PMID: 18697951

  5. Provencher MT, McCormick F, Dewing C, McIntire S, Solomon D. A prospective analysis of 179 type 2 superior labrum anterior and posterior repairs: outcomes and factors associated with success and failure. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(4):880-886. PMID: 23460326

  6. Sethi PM, Vadasdi K, Greene RT, Vitale MA, Duong M, Miller SR. Safety of open suprapectoral and subpectoral biceps tenodesis: an anatomic assessment of risk for neurologic injury. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(1):138-142. PMID: 25193486

  7. Hartland AW, Islam R, Teoh KH, Rashid MS. Clinical effectiveness of tenotomy versus tenodesis for long head of biceps pathology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2022;12(10):e061954. PMID: 36220319

  8. Zhou P, Liu J, Deng X, Li Z. Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis for lesions of the long head of the biceps tendon: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore). 2021;100(3):e23993. PMID: 33545991