ABSTRACT
Pathology in the bicipital groove can be a source of anterior shoulder pain. Many studies have compared treatment techniques for the long head biceps tendon (LHBT) without showing any clinically significant differences. As the LHBT is closely related to the bicipital groove, anatomical aspects of this groove could also be implicated in surgical outcomes. The aim of this review is to contribute to developing the optimal surgical treatment of LHBT pathology based on clinically relevant aspects of the bicipital groove. Medline/PubMed was systematically searched using key words "bicipital" and "groove" and combinations of their synonyms. Studies reporting on evolution, embryonic development, morphometry, vascularization, innervation, and surgical treatment of the LHBT and the bicipital groove were included. The length of the bicipital groove reported in the included studies ranged from 81.00 mm to 87.33 mm, width from 7.74 mm to 11.60 mm, and depth from 3.70 mm to 6.00 mm. The anatomy of the bicipital groove shows a bottleneck narrowing approximately two-thirds from superior. The transverse humeral ligament can constrain the bicipital groove and could be involved in anterior shoulder pain. When either LHBT tenotomy or tenodesis is performed, routinely releasing the transverse ligament could decrease postoperative anterior shoulder pain, which has frequently been reported in the literature. To avoid the bottle neck narrowing, a location below the bicipital groove may be preferred for biceps tenodesis over a more proximal tenodesis site. Level of evidence: IV.
Subject(s)
Humerus/anatomy & histology , Muscle, Skeletal/anatomy & histology , Shoulder Joint/anatomy & histology , Shoulder Pain/surgery , Tendon Injuries/surgery , Humans , Tenodesis/methods , Tenotomy/methodsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The Popeye sign is a frequently reported finding following long head of the biceps (LHB) surgery and may be more often detected by doctors than by patients. This study investigates agreement between patients and doctors regarding the presence of a Popeye sign following LHB surgery. METHOD: This interobserver study investigates agreement between patients and consulting physicians with regard to assessment of a Popeye sign in patients following LHB surgery. Furthermore, this was compared with assessments by non-consulting physicians (observers) using digital photographs of the operated arm, taken both preoperatively and postoperatively. Data about gender, age, and body mass index (BMI) were collected to investigate their role in doctor's reporting of a Popeye sign. Patient's dissatisfaction with a Popeye sign in the operated arm was evaluated as well. RESULTS: Ninety-seven patients (mean age 61 ± 6.0 years, 62% male) underwent LHB surgery. A Popeye sign was reported by 2 patients (2%) as opposed to 32 cases (40%) by consulting physicians, of which only 1 case was in agreement. Krippendorff's alpha (Kalpha) for agreement between observers for preoperative photographs was 0.074 (95% CI -0.277, 0.382) and 0.495 (95% CI 0.317, 0.659) for postoperative cases. Kalpha between observers and consulting physicians for pre- and postoperative cases were 0.033 (95% CI -970, 0.642) and 0.499 (95% CI 0.265, 0.699), respectively. Phi coefficient analysis showed a moderate, statistically significant correlation between male sex and Popeye sign identification. Rank-biserial calculation revealed negligible correlation between BMI and age with regard to detecting a Popeye sign by both consulting physicians and observers. Dissatisfaction about swelling in the upper arm was reported in 1 case, though in a location that did not correspond to the location of a Popeye sign. CONCLUSION: The Popeye sign is more often identified by doctors than by patients after undergoing LHB surgery. BMI and age are not related to the detection of a Popeye sign, but sex is moderately correlated. Together with the low percentage of dissatisfaction of patients with this swelling, this signifies that a Popeye sign seems to be a doctor's rather than a patient's problem.