ArticleJSES international2021
Failure rates and clinical outcomes after treatment for long-head biceps brachii tendon pathology: a comparison of three treatment types.
Article in JSES international, 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.
- Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis: Inlay or onlay technique?Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2026Article
- Open Biceps Tenodesis and Tenotomy Have Low 30-Day Postoperative Complication Rates.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- The long head of biceps at the shoulder: a scoping review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- The Transosseous Cerclage In Situ Technique for Biceps Tenodesis.Arthroscopy techniques · 2022Article
- Single-Portal Proximal Biceps Tenodesis Using an All-Suture Anchor.Arthroscopy techniques · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
HYPOTHESIS/
backgroundTreatment options for the biceps brachii tendon include tenotomy, arthroscopic tenodesis, and open tenodesis. Few studies to date have compared all treatment options in the context of a rotator cuff repair.
methodsA retrospective review of 100 patients who underwent arthroscopic supraspinatus repair between 2013 and 2018 with a minimum of one-year follow-up was performed. Patients were separated into the following 4 groups: (1) 57 had isolated supraspinatus repair with no biceps tendon surgery (SSP); (2) 16 had supraspinatus repair and biceps tenotomy; (3) 18 had supraspinatus repair and arthroscopic biceps tenodesis; (4) 9 had supraspinatus repair and an open biceps tenodesis (SSP + OT). The primary outcome was operative time. The secondary outcomes were cost analysis, complications, patient-reported outcome measures, range of motion, and strength testing.
resultsThe operative time for the SSP + OT group was significantly longer than that of the SSP group ( DISCUSSION/
conclusionOperative time is the longest in open biceps tenodesis and is significantly longer than that of isolated supraspinatus repair. No significant differences in operative times or costs were identified in patients undergoing arthroscopic vs. open biceps tenodesis. All patients, irrespective of the type of biceps tendon procedure, had excellent clinical and functional outcomes at least one year after surgery. There was no difference in clinical or functional outcomes, or complications, among the 4 groups.
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.