ArticleThe archives of bone and joint surgery2021
Patient Reported Outcomes of Long Head Biceps Tenodesis after Spontaneous Rupture.
Article in The archives of bone and joint surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biceps Tendon Rupture: Contemporary Evidence, Evolving Techniques, and a Mechanics-to-Management Clinical Framework.Cureus · 2025Review
- Reconstruction of chronic long head of biceps tendon tears with gracilis allograft: report of two cases.Clinics in shoulder and elbow · 2024Article
- Tendinopathy of the Distal Biceps Tendon is a Common Incidental Finding on Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Elbow.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the factors influencing patient reported outcome measures (PROM) of biceps tenodesis after the rupture of proximal long head of the biceps tendon.
methodsRetrospective chart review was conducted to identify patients with complete proximal rupture of the long head of the biceps that underwent biceps tenodesis between 2002-2017. This yielded 42 patients, of which 23 (55%) completed the PROMIS Pain Interference, PROMIS Upper Extremity, Quick DASH, and a custom biceps tear questionnaire, at a median of 8.5 years (IQR:5.2-12) post-operatively. The median age of the respondents was 57 years (IQR: 43-61). The majority of patients (n=12, 52%) underwent tenodesis using suture anchor fixation, while the remaining underwent tenodesis with interference screw technique (n=6, 26%), key hole technique (n=1, 4.3%), or tunnel technique (n=1, 4.3%). A bivariate analysis was performed to evaluate factors influencing the PROMs.
resultsSix patients (27%) reported persistent biceps cramping at a median of 8.2 years post-operatively, negatively impacting PROMs, and this was associated with older age. Six patients (27%) had post-operative complications, including infection, pain, stiffness, and re-rupture, of which four patients (17%) underwent reoperation. Patients with activity/sports-induced injury or those that underwent tenodesis using a suture anchor technique demonstrated better PROMs.
conclusionPost-operative biceps cramping persists in almost one-third of patients and significantly impacts PROMs. Patient activity level and the use of suture anchor technique for tenodesis were independent predictors of improved biceps tenodesis outcome scores.
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.