Search

Objective: To evaluate whether body mass index (BMI) 30 can be used as a cut-off point in decisions about whether or not to perform long head biceps (LHB) tenodesis, leading to a low rate of esthetic complaints, and to compare two tenodesis techniques., Methods: Ninety-six patients underwent shoulder arthroscopy where tenotomy was performed separately in patients with a BMI ≥30 and was followed by tenodesis when BMI <30. The patients were assessed on the basis of their personal perception of the deformity and by 3 independent observers., Results: The patient's perception of esthetic deformity in the arm was 15.6%. In the tenotomy group (12.5%) and in the tenodesis group (17.9%) - (p = 0.476). Patients with rocambole-like tenodesis perceived the deformity in 13.2% of cases, while patients with anchor tenodesis noticed the deformity 27.8% (p = 0.263) of the time. There was no statistical difference in the perception of deformity among the independent examiners., Conclusion: BMI 30 can be used as a cut-off point in decisions about whether or not to perform LHB tenodesis, leading to low rates of esthetic complaint by patients (12.5%). The rocambole-like tenodesis technique appears to be more able to avoid esthetic deformity of the arm after the LHB tenotomy according to the patients' observations. Level of evidence II, Prospective comparative study. , Competing Interests: All authors declare no potential conflict of interest related to this article.

Objective: To evaluate the perception of an esthetical deformity resultant from arthroscopic long head biceps (LHB) tenotomy according to the degree of experience of the assisting professional., Methods: 120 patients submitted to shoulder surgery were photographed and photos were mounted in a PowerPoint presentation. Three shoulder specialist surgeons, three generalist orthopedic surgeons and three graduated residents analyzed the presentation., Results: On all patients we observed most agreement among the shoulder specialists. When just the patients with LHB tenotomy were analyzed, the specialists agreed moderately, the generalists had small agreement and the residents, a poor one. Analyzing patients with BMI < 30, there was major agreement between the specialists, while the generalists and residents had poor agreement. Analyzing patients with BMI ≥ 30, the generalists had small kappa agreement, while the specialists and residents had no agreement., Conclusions: The perception of an esthetical deformity regarding a LHB tenotomy did not have significant agreement between different level of professionals, even though the specialists showed similar perception on tenotomy patients. The evaluation of obese patients lowered the agreement on the three groups of professionals. Level of Evidence III. Case Control Study.