<link rel="stylesheet" href="styles.f3b1fba60ec7970c.css">

Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis: Inlay or onlay technique?

dc.contributor.authorKarademir, Gokhan
dc.contributor.authorTunali, Onur
dc.contributor.authorOzdemir, Yunus Emre
dc.contributor.authorDiril, Sabri Kerem
dc.contributor.authorTopkarci, Yasemin Begum
dc.contributor.authorAtalar, Ata Can
dc.date.accessioned2026-11-05T11:06:46Z
dc.date.issued2026
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: The long-term outcomes of arthroscopic tenodesis using the onlay (groove) and inlay (groove) techniques remain debated with respect to tendon healing and graft stability. The aim of our study was to identify the optimal tenodesis strategy by comparing the effects of arthroscopic inlay and onlay techniques on postoperative complication rates, patient satisfaction, and functional METHODS: Between 2015 and 2021, the treatment outcomes of 54 patients who underwent arthroscopic biceps tenodesis using either the inlay or onlay technique for the management of superior labrum anterior-to-posterior (SLAP) lesions or biceps tendon degeneration were retrospectively evaluated. Patient demographics and clinical variables, including age, sex, side of involvement, followup duration, visual analog scale (VAS) score, Constant score, postoperative cramping, and complications, were recorded. Group 1 consisted of 28 patients who underwent inlay tenodesis, while Group 2 included 26 patients who underwent onlay tenodesis. RESULTS: Postoperatively, VAS scores improved substantially in both groups, with no significant difference between Group 1 (0.21 +/- 0.45) and Group 2 (0.18 +/- 0.37) (p=0.789). Similarly, postoperative Constant scores were high in both groups, with Group 1 at 92.73 +/- 8.23 and Group 2 at 95.47 +/- 5.12; this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.145). The mean recovery time was significantly shorter in Group 2 compared to Group 1. Specifically, the mean recovery time was 12.3 +/- 4.8 weeks in Group 1 and 8.3 +/- 3.72 weeks in Group 2 (p=0.01). Cramping was reported in 21.42% of patients in Group 1 and 7.69% in Group 2; however, this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.253). In Group 1, Popeye deformity developed in two patients (7.1%), whereas in Group 2 it deCONCLUSION: The present study demonstrates that both inlay and onlay arthroscopic biceps tenodesis techniques are effective surgical options for managing biceps tendon degeneration and superior labrum anterior-to-posterior lesions. However, the findings suggest a potential advantage of the onlay technique, as it is associated with faster recovery and a lower risk of complications.
dc.description.issue4
dc.description.pages473-479
dc.description.volume32
dc.identifier.doi10.14744/tjtes.2025.08783
dc.identifier.issn1306-696X
dc.identifier.issn1307-7945
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.14744/tjtes.2025.08783
dc.identifier.urihttps://openaccess.acibadem.edu.tr/handle/11443/11384
dc.identifier.wosWOS:001762398300008
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherTURKISH ASSOC TRAUMA EMERGENCY SURGERY
dc.relation.hasversion10.14744/tjtes.2025.08783
dc.relation.ispartofULUSAL TRAVMA VE ACIL CERRAHI DERGISI-TURKISH JOURNAL OF TRAUMA & EMERGENCY SURGERY
dc.subjectArthroscopic biceps tenodesis
dc.subjectinlay technique
dc.subjectonlay technique
dc.subjectinterference screw
dc.subjectknotless suture anchor.
dc.subjectBIOMECHANICAL EVALUATION
dc.subjectUNICORTICAL BUTTON
dc.subjectFIXATION
dc.subjectOUTCOMES
dc.subjectDIFFERENCE
dc.subjectFRACTURE
dc.subjectFAILURE
dc.subjectEmergency Medicine
dc.titleArthroscopic biceps tenodesis: Inlay or onlay technique?
dc.typeArticle
oaire.citation.editionScience Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED)
oaire.citation.endPage479
oaire.citation.issue4
oaire.citation.startPage473
oaire.citation.volume32
person.identifier.ridPVE-4643-2026
person.identifier.ridMEP-8903-2025
person.identifier.ridB-2133-2016

Files

Collections