Biceps Autograft Augmentation for Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Purpose: To improve surgical outcomes in patients with massive cuff defects, different techniques and augmentations are proposed. The biceps tendon is easily available as an autograft. Our aim was to conduct a qualitative systematic review of various methods and surgical techniques that use a biceps autograft (BAG) for rotator cuff repair. Functional outcomes are also reported. We hypothesized that by using a BAG to treat massive rotator cuff tears, a more anatomic and biomechanical reconstruction could be achieved compared with other techniques.

Methods: A qualitative systematic review was conducted (MEDLINE and Embase databases) to inventory surgical techniques for use of a BAG for rotator cuff repair. The following search terms were used for MEDLINE: biceps AND (augment* OR autograft* OR transplantation* OR (cuff AND graft*) OR biceps-incorporat*). Studies were included if the following criteria were fulfilled: description of surgical technique, only human subjects, functional outcomes noted, all study designs except technical notes, and no restrictions on study date. The quality of the studies was assessed in a standardized manner using a tool based on the Cochrane handbook.

Results: We identified 981 studies; among these, 8 case series met the inclusion criteria. We identified 6 studies as high quality and 2 as medium quality. Different techniques for harvest and augmentation were used. Some studies left the proximal or distal portion intact, whereas others used it as a free graft. The clinical results of these studies showed significantly improved function, pain relief, and range of motion at follow-up, although this was not compared with a control group. The constructs were intact on magnetic resonance imaging in most patients (82%) within 2 years.

Conclusions: It can be concluded that use of a BAG is an option for augmentation in massive rotator cuff tears, although no definitive recommendations can be given. This is based on Level IV medium- and high-quality studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level IV studies.