Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28495804›Full record

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.

Cecilie Piene Schrøder, Øystein Skare, Olav Reikerås, Petter Mowinckel, Jens Ivar Brox

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
13.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT00586742 nacompletednot on this map

SLAP Lesions; a Comparison of Conservative and Operative Treatment. A Prospective, Randomized Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorLovisenberg Diakonale HospitalRan2008 to 2016Enrolled118ConditionsSLAP LesionsArmslabral repair, biceps tenodesis, diagnostic arthroscopy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 120 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Editorial: Chance Encounters, Overdiagnosis, and Overtreatment.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Cecilie Piene SchrøderOrthopedic Department, Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Øystein SkareOrthopedic Department, Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Olav ReikeråsOslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Petter MowinckelOslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Jens Ivar BroxOslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2507-1812
Oslo University Hospital · NOLovisenberg Diakonale Høgskole · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AdolescentAdultArthroscopyDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMuscle, SkeletalShoulderShoulder InjuriesShoulder JointTenodesisYoung Adultbiceps tenodesislabral repairRandomised trialsham surgerySLAP lesions

Identifiers

PMID28495804
PMCPMC5754846
OpenAlexW2613675964

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.