Long head of biceps tendon augmentation for massive rotator cuff tears improves clinical results regardless of the number of tendons involved

Abstract Purpose Management of massive rotator cuff tears (MRCTs) remains debated, and various arthroscopic and open techniques have been described for their management. Nevertheless, the optimal strategy remains unclear. The present study evaluated the clinical results in patients managed arthroscopically for MRCTs augmented with the long head biceps tendon (LHBT) at a minimum 1‐year follow‐up, considering different type of tears, demographic data and number of torn tendons. Methods Patients treated in a secondary referral centre from January 2021 to April 2022 were enroled prospectively. Inclusion criteria were pain, inability to fully elevate the affected shoulder, irreparable tears and active and motivated patients. All patients were managed within 2 months from diagnosis in a single centre by the same surgeons. Preoperative shoulder radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were collected, and clinical assessment was also performed using the Numerical analogue scale (NAS), Constant score (CS) American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Score (ASES). Tissue retraction and tendon fatty infiltration were evaluated using Patte and Fuchs scale, respectively. Clinical assessment was performed using the same scales at 3–6 months and 1‐year follow‐up. Results A total of 55 patients (31 female and 24 male) with a mean age of 60 ± 7.1 years were enroled for a mean follow‐up of 18.2 ± 4.3 months. The mean preoperative NAS was 7.8 ± 0.6, CS was 20.5 ± 7.6 and ASES was 22.6 ± 9.2, increasing, respectively, to 0.3 ± 0.6, 91.5 ± 6.9 and 94.2 ± 6.7. No adverse side effects (infection, rejection, allergy) were reported during the study period. All patients were evaluated after surgery at 3 and 6 months and 1 year with statistically significant improvement for each score at the first and last follow‐up ( p < 0.05). Conclusions The use of LHBT augmentation in patients with MRCTs in appropriately selected patients is safe and effective and can lead to pain relief and acceptable clinical outcomes. Furthermore, its use carries low donor site morbidity and is cost effective. Comparative studies, including randomised controlled trials, with other proposed techniques are needed to confirm these findings. Level of Evidence Level IV.