ArticleArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2021
Cost Comparison of Open and Arthroscopic Treatment Options for SLAP Tears.
Article in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating Cost Disparities and Utilization of Shoulder Arthroscopy: A National Analysis of Racial, Ethnic, and Socioeconomic Determinants.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025Article
- Socioeconomic Disparities and Procedural Complexity Influence Charges in Primary Patellar Instability Treatment: A Nationwide Analysis.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Biceps tenotomy vs. tenodesis: an ACS-NSQIP analysis of postoperative outcomes and utilization trends.JSES international · 2024Article
- SLAP Repair Versus Biceps Tenodesis in Patients Younger Than 40 Years: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo identify cost drivers of open biceps tenodesis, arthroscopic biceps tenodesis, and arthroscopic SLAP repair in the setting of isolated SLAP tears and to perform a direct cost comparison between the procedures.
methodsThe 2014 State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases from 6 US states were used. Cases with Current Procedural Terminology codes 23430 (tenodesis of long tendon of biceps), 29807 (shoulder arthroscopy, repair of SLAP lesion), and 29828 (shoulder arthroscopy, biceps tenodesis) were selected, excluding patients who were >50 years old or had a concomitant rotator cuff repair. Generalized linear models were used to model costs based on surgical and patient variables.
resultsThe mean patient age was 41.8 years for open biceps tenodesis, 31.6 for arthroscopic SLAP repair, and 41.3 for arthroscopic biceps tenodesis (
conclusionIn patients aged ≤50 years with isolated SLAP tears, open biceps tenodesis provides cost savings over arthroscopic methods of treatment. There was no significant cost difference between arthroscopic SLAP repairs and arthroscopic biceps tenodesis. Given the increased emphasis on cost containment, surgeons should be aware of the procedural costs associated with the treatment of SLAP tears. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective cohort study.
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.