Biceps Tenodesis / Tenotomy (LHB)
Surgical technique guide for Long Head of Biceps Tenodesis and Tenotomy — FRCS exam preparation
Reviewed by OrthoVellum Editorial Team
Editorial maintenance, source checking, and correction workflow • Published by OrthoVellum Medical Education Team
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%).
TENOTOMYTENOTOMY — When Tenotomy is the RIGHT Choice
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



Clinical Decision Scenarios
Use these scenarios to practise clinical reasoning and management decisions
"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."
"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?"
"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?"
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
Clinical effectiveness of tenotomy versus tenodesis for long head of biceps pathology: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis for lesions of the long head of the biceps tendon: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Arthroscopic treatment of isolated type II SLAP lesions: biceps tenodesis as an alternative to reinsertion
A prospective analysis of 179 type 2 superior labrum anterior and posterior repairs: outcomes and factors associated with success and failure
Safety of open suprapectoral and subpectoral biceps tenodesis: an anatomic assessment of risk for neurologic injury
References
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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