Trial reportBritish journal of sports medicine2017
Sham surgery versus labral repair or biceps tenodesis for type II SLAP lesions of the shoulder: a three-armed randomised clinical trial.
Trial report in British journal of sports medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00586742 (SLAP Lesions; a Comparison of Conservative and Operative Treatment. A Prospective, Randomized Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 53 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
SLAP Lesions; a Comparison of Conservative and Operative Treatment. A Prospective, Randomized Study
Who cites it
53 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 120 citations in OpenAlex.
- Want to be fit? Start with your mind! The role of the placebo effect in physical fitness in children: a preliminary systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2024Pooled it
- Reporting of key methodological issues in placebo-controlled trials of surgery needs improvement: a systematic review.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2020Pooled it
- Is arthroscopic repair superior to biceps tenotomy and tenodesis for type II SLAP lesions? A meta-analysis of RCTs and observational studies.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2019Pooled it
- How does surgery compare to sham surgery or physiotherapy as a treatment for tendinopathy? A systematic review of randomised trials.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Trial
- Subacromial decompression versus diagnostic arthroscopy for shoulder impingement: randomised, placebo surgery controlled clinical trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2018Trial
- Magnitude of the placebo response across non-surgical treatment modalities used for knee osteoarthritis: A meta-analysis with meta-regression.Osteoarthritis and cartilage open · 2026Review
- Surgical management of internal impingement in overhead athletes: a systematic review.Clinics in shoulder and elbow · 2026Review
- Durable Shoulder Pain Relief and Avoidance of Surgery Up To 5 Years Following 60-Day PNS Treatment.Pain and therapy · 2025Article
- Negative expectations and related nocebo effects in shoulder pain: a perspective for clinicians and researchers.Pain management · 2025Review
- Article
- Surgical management of SLAP lesions: Which technique has better surgical outcomes?Journal of orthopaedics · 2024Review
- Article
- Combined Bankart and SLAP repair: patient-reported outcome measurements after a minimum 5-year follow-up.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Article
- Lower Reoperation and Higher Return-to-Sport Rates After Biceps Tenodesis Versus SLAP Repair in Young Patients: A Systematic Review.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2022Review
- Article
- Editorial: Chance Encounters, Overdiagnosis, and Overtreatment.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2022Article
- Article
- Superior labral anterior and posterior (SLAP) lesions of the long bicep insertion on the glenoid: management in athletes.International orthopaedics · 2022Review
- SLAP Repair Versus Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis for Isolated SLAP Type 2 Lesions in Overhead Athletes Younger Than 35 Years: Comparison of Minimum 2-Year Outcomes.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLabral repair and biceps tenodesis are routine operations for superior labrum anterior posterior (SLAP) lesion of the shoulder, but evidence of their efficacy is lacking. We evaluated the effect of labral repair, biceps tenodesis and sham surgery on SLAP lesions.
methodsA double-blind, sham-controlled trial was conducted with 118 surgical candidates (mean age 40 years), with patient history, clinical symptoms and MRI arthrography indicating an isolated type II SLAP lesion. Patients were randomly assigned to either labral repair (n=40), biceps tenodesis (n=39) or sham surgery (n=39) if arthroscopy revealed an isolated SLAP II lesion. Primary outcomes at 6 and 24 months were clinical Rowe score ranging from 0 to 100 (best possible) and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) ranging from 0 (best possible) to 2100. Secondary outcomes were Oxford Instability Shoulder Score, change in main symptoms, EuroQol (EQ-5D and EQ-VAS), patient satisfaction and complications.
resultsThere were no significant between-group differences at any follow-up in any outcome. Between-group differences in Rowe scores at 2 years were: biceps tenodesis versus labral repair: 1.0 (95% CI -5.4 to 7.4), p=0.76; biceps tenodesis versus sham surgery: 1.6 (95% CI -5.0 to 8.1), p=0.64; and labral repair versus sham surgery: 0.6 (95% CI -5.9 to 7.0), p=0.86. Similar results-no differences between groups-were found for WOSI scores. Postoperative stiffness occurred in five patients after labral repair and in four patients after tenodesis.
conclusionNeither labral repair nor biceps tenodesis had any significant clinical benefit over sham surgery for patients with SLAP II lesions in the population studied. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00586742.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.