Background: Biceps tenotomy and tenodesis are surgical treatments for pathology of the proximal tendon of the long head of the biceps. There is debate over which procedure provides better patient outcomes. Purpose: Compare patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction between biceps tenotomy and tenodesis. Methods: This retrospective cohort study including all patients undergoing arthroscopic biceps tenodesis or tenotomy as part of more extensive shoulder surgery with a single surgeon. Concomitant procedures included rotator cuff repair, subacromial decompression, acromioclavicular joint resection, and debridement. Patients 36–81 years old were contacted by phone at > 2-year post-operatively to complete a biceps-specific outcome questionnaire. Subject decision not to participate was the sole exclusion criterion. Satisfaction scores and frequencies of potential biceps-related downsides (biceps cramping/spasms, biceps pain, shoulder pain, weakness, cosmetic deformity) were analyzed for the effects of procedure, sex, and age. Results: Satisfaction score distributions were similar between patients with tenodesis and patients with tenotomy (χ² = 8.34, P = 0.08), although slightly more patients with tenodesis than patients with tenotomy reported being satisfied or very satisfied (96% versus 91%). Perceived downsides occurred more frequently among patients with tenotomy than in patients with tenodesis: 59% of patients with tenotomy reported ≥ 1 downside, versus 37% of patients with tenodesis (P < 0.01). In patients reporting ≥ 1 downside, distributions of total downsides differed between procedures (χ² = 10.04, P = 0.04): patients with tenotomy were more likely to report multiple concurrent downsides than were patients with tenodesis (31% versus 16%). Each individual downside tended to be reported as present by a greater proportion of patients with tenotomy than patients with tenodesis. Sex had no effect on satisfaction or downsides, but there was a trend for older patients to report higher satisfaction and fewer downsides. Conclusions: Biceps tenotomy and tenodesis are both viable treatments for proximal biceps tendon pathology, yielding high patient satisfaction. There were trends toward greater satisfaction and fewer problems in patients with tenodesis. Still, younger patients with tenodesis did report perceived downsides. Alternatively, older patients tended to be more satisfied with both procedures overall. Regardless of procedure, most patients receiving either tenotomy or tenodesis would undergo their respective surgery again. Level of Evidence: Level III evidence, retrospective comparative cohort study

Update: This article was updated on August 20, 2021, because of a previous error. On page 1, the link to the Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms was corrected to http://links.lww.com/JBJSOA/A314. An erratum has been published: JBJS Open Access 2021;6(3):e21.00034ER. Background: Orthopaedic surgery residency program directors (PDs) and candidates consider interviews to be central to the application process. In-person interviews are typical, but virtual interviews present a potentially appealing alternative. Candidate and PD expectations and perceptions of virtual interviews during the 2020/2021 orthopaedic surgery application cycle were assessed. Methods: Candidates and PDs were surveyed electronically. Questions covered pre–virtual-interview and post–virtual-interview expectations and perceptions, and past in-person experiences (PDs and reapplicants) on the relative importance of application components, ability to assess fit, interview costs, and preferred interview mode. Identical questions allowed between-group comparisons. Results: Responses included n = 29 PDs and n = 99 candidates. PDs reported diminished ability to assess candidate fit; social, clinical, and surgical skills; and genuine interest in the virtual context (each p ≤ 0.01). They placed greater importance on research and less on the interview in the virtual vs. in-person context (each p = 0.02). Most candidates (78%) reported fair/good ability to demonstrate potential and were better able to assess research opportunities than expected (p < 0.01). Candidates expected virtual interviews to increase the importance of research, transcripts, and recommendations (for each, p ≤ 0.02) and decrease the importance of the interview itself (p < 0.01). Compared with PDs, candidates overvalued research, United States Medical Licensing Examination scores, transcripts, and recommendations (each p ≤ 0.02) and may have slightly undervalued the virtual interview (p = 0.08). Most candidates (81%) and PDs (79%) preferred in-person interviews, despite both groups reporting monetary savings. Conclusions: Despite cost savings associated with virtual interviews, orthopaedic surgery residency PDs and candidates identified reduced abilities to assess candidate or program fit and displayed a preference for in-person interviews.