Functional Results of Infiltration for Biceps Tendonitis Guided by Ultrasound vs Anatomical Repairs: Variation in Technique

Shoulder pain is a frequent orthopedic complaint, with biceps long head tendinitis being a common cause leading to physical disability in the working and athletic population. Currently, there's no guideline for managing biceps tendinitis. Studying clinical outcomes post-biceps tendon sheath infiltration will aid in developing management guidelines for quick patient return to activities with minimal sequelae.

No studies in Colombia have compared clinical outcomes of biceps tendinitis patients undergoing ultrasound-guided vs anatomically guided infiltrations. This information will allow comparison with global literature, assessing differences in treatment effectiveness and socio-economic impact on the population.

Research Question:

In patients with long head biceps tendinitis, does ultrasound-guided infiltration compared to anatomically guided infiltration yield better clinical outcomes?

Theoretical Framework and State of the Art:

The biceps tendon originates from the supraglenoid tubercle of the scapula, contributing to shoulder stability and functions such as forearm supination and elbow flexion. Primary biceps tendinitis, constituting about 5% of bicipital pathology cases, can limit daily activities.

Tendinitis cascade initiation involves inflammation due to repetitive traction, leading to increased tendon volume and pressure in specific locations, predisposing it to shear forces and degenerative changes. Diagnosis involves ultrasound and MRI, with initial treatment focusing on non-surgical methods and corticosteroid infiltrations when conservative management fails.

Ultrasound-guided injections, compared to anatomical landmarks, show higher precision and efficacy rates, reducing patient discomfort.

Procedure Technique:

Anatomical landmark-guided puncture involves patient positioning and palpation, whereas ultrasound-guided involves identifying the biceps tendon's axis and inserting the needle parallel to the transducer.

Objectives:

General Objective: To compare functional outcomes of biceps tendon sheath infiltration guided by anatomical landmarks versus ultrasound in biceps tendinitis patients.

Specific Objectives: Characterize patient demographics, describe complication incidence, compare complication incidence between groups, and compare clinical outcomes between techniques.

Hypotheses:

Null Hypothesis: Ultrasound-guided infiltration yields similar functional results as anatomical landmark-guided infiltration in biceps tendinitis patients.

Alternative Hypothesis: Ultrasound-guided infiltration yields better functional results than anatomical landmark-guided infiltration in biceps tendinitis patients.

Methodology:

This entails a randomized clinical trial with double-blind methodology, involving RedCap software for randomization. Patients are blinded to the procedure, while the applicator knows the procedure but outcome evaluators are blinded.

Anatomical Landmark-guided Puncture:

The patient is placed in the supine position with the shoulder at a 10° internal rotation angle. Identification involves palpation of the coracoid process, tuberosities, biceps tendon, and bicipital groove. The tuberosities and biceps tendon groove are marked at the presumed tendon location. Confirmation of tendon location is achieved through palpation with rotations and manual palpation (highlighting 5 to 7 cm distal to the anterolateral margin of the acromion). A 5cc syringe with a 0.8 x 40 mm 21G ½ needle is used for puncture, inclined at a 20° to 30° cephalic angle until the biceps tendon sheath is pierced. During the procedure, ultrasound machine and transducer positioning will be performed, although the device will remain turned off.

Ultrasound-guided Puncture:

The patient is positioned supine with the shoulder in a neutral rotation. Identification involves locating the axis of the long head biceps tendon. The transducer is positioned perpendicular to the synovial sheath. The needle is inserted parallel to the transducer along its long axis from the lateral side of the shoulder. The needle is visualized on the monitor as a hyperechoic image and advanced continuously and in real-time into the tendon sheath. A 5cc syringe with a 0.8 x 40 mm 21G ½ needle is used for puncture. This procedure is performed by a specialist trained in ultrasound.

General Objective Compare the functional outcomes of bicipital groove infiltration guided by anatomical landmarks and by ultrasound as a technique variation in patients with biceps tendinitis.

Specific Objectives

Characterize demographic variables in the study patient groups. Describe the incidence of complications related to the procedures. Compare the incidence of complications between the groups. Compare clinical outcomes between the two techniques (EVA, qDASH, SANE, satisfaction).

• Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for Pain Assessment [Time frame: initial measurement before treatment administration, follow up at 1, 2, 3 and 4 months]
• Tenderness to palpation [Time frame: Time Frame initial measurement before treatment administration, final measurement at 4 months.]
• Speed Test [Time frame: Time Frame initial measurement before treatment administration, final measurement at 4 months.]
• Yergason Test [Time frame: initial measurement before treatment administration, final measurement at 4 months.]
• Satisfaction with treatment [Time frame: final measurement at 4 months.]
• Complications [Time frame: final measurement at 4 months.]