Objective To compare the effects of compression screw fixation versus wire-anchored strapping fixation on rotator cuff injury combined with rupture of long head biceps tendon （LHBT） under arthroscopy. Methods In this study, 75 patients with rotator cuff injury complicated with LHBT rupture who received compression screw fixation from November 2021 to November 2023 were selected as the screw group, and another 75 patients with rotator cuff injury complicated with LHBT rupture who received wire anchor binding and fixation at the same time period were selected as the anchor group. The clinical data of the two groups were retrospectively analyzed. Results There were no significant differences in visual analog scale （VAS） scores, University of California at Los Angeles Shoulder Rating Scale （UCLA） scores, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon’s Form （ASES） scores, and shoulder joint motion between the two groups before surgery （P>0.05）. The VAS, UCLA, and ASES scores and shoulder joint motion between the two groups at all time points （3, 6, and 12 months） were significantly higher than those before surgery （P<0.05）. The VAS scores of the screw group at 3 months and 6 months after surgery were significantly lower than those of the anchor group （P<0.05）, and there was no significant difference in VAS score between the two groups at 12 months after surgery （P>0.05）. There were no significant differences in UCLA and ASES scores and shoulder joint motion between the two groups at each time point after surgery （P>0.05）. The complication rate of the screw group was significantly higher than that of the anchor group （P<0.05）, and there was no significant difference in reoperation rate between the two groups （P>0.05）. Conclusion Both fixation methods have good therapeutic effects. Compression screw fixation can better control the early postoperative pain of patients, and wire anchor binding and fixation can effectively reduce the occurrence of postoperative complications, so the clinical selection should be based on the specific situation.
WANG Fuchao
,
ZHAO Yanqing
,
ZHANG Yan
,
XIA Detao
,
ZHU Jun
,
XIA Hai
,
SUN Yinghua
. Comparative analysis of different fixation methods for rotator cuff injury combined with rupture of long head biceps tendon under arthroscopy[J]. Surgical Research and New Technique, 2025
, 14(2)
: 122
-125
.
DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-378X.2025.02.005
[1] 任涛,张开伟,杨宇,等. 肩胛下肌损伤与肱二头肌长头肌腱病变MRI分型的相关性及临床特点[J]. 临床医学研究与实践,2023,8(9):93-96.
[2] 王微,康汇,李红川,等. 肩关节镜下肱二头肌长头腱桥接治疗巨大肩袖损伤伴肱二头肌长头腱病损疗效观察[J]. 中国骨与关节损伤杂志,2020,35(3):313-315.
[3] 尚小可,郑君,余子杨,等. 肩袖损伤的处理临床实践指南(2019年)解读[J]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志,2021,9(2):103-111.
[4] 杨超健. 合并肩袖撕裂的肱二头肌长头腱损伤在肩关节镜下两种术式的疗效及术后影像学比较[D]. 银川:宁夏医科大学,2022.
[5] Abed V, Jacobs C, Skinner M, et al.ASES and UCLA are responsive patient-reported outcome measures after rotator cuff repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Am J Sports Med, 2024, 52(12): 3173-3178.
[6] 易刚,杨静,张磊,等. 肌腱切断和肌腱固定修复伴肩袖损伤肱二头肌长头腱病变疗效比较的Meta分析[J]. 中国组织工程研究,2018,22(24):3921-3929.
[7] 鲁谊,杨珖,李岳,等. 肩袖损伤合并肱二头肌长头腱病变的危险因素及其对肩关节功能的影响[J]. 中华骨科杂志, 2021,41(8):471-479.
[8] 李昂. 在关节镜下巨大肩袖撕裂修补术中行肱二头肌长头腱切断术对中老年患者的疗效观察[D]. 石河子:石河子大学, 2022.
[9] 陈文锋,沈烈军,李展振,等. 肌腱固定与切断术在肩袖损伤合并LHBT中的应用效果[J]. 浙江创伤外科,2023,28(1): 118-121.
[10] 匡海林,汤武兵. 关节镜下肩袖损伤合并肱二头肌长头腱断裂不同的固定方式对肩关节功能恢复的影响分析[J]. 首都食品与医药,2024,31(10):22-25.
[11] Forsythe B, Patel HH, Berlinberg EJ, et al.A Radiostereometric analysis of tendon migration after arthroscopic and mini-open biceps tenodesis: interference screw versus single suture anchor fixation[J]. Am J Sports Med,2023, 51(11): 2869-2880.
[12] Haupt ET, O'Keefe K, Farmer K. Arthroscopic all-inside biceps tenodesis: technique and outcomes[J]. Arthrosc Tech, 2019, 8(12): e1485-e1489.
