Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35348832›Full record

ReviewInternational orthopaedics2022

Superior labral anterior and posterior (SLAP) lesions of the long bicep insertion on the glenoid: management in athletes.

Juan Martín Patiño

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International orthopaedics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 39% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Juan Martín PatiñoOrthopaedic and Traumatology Department, Hospital Militar Central, Cir My "Cosme Argerich", Buenos Aires, Argentina. Drpatinojm@gmail.com.
Argerich Hospital · AR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSLAP injuries are common in athletes but there is no consensus on different aspects such as pathophysiology and treatment options. Currently, the main controversy in the treatment of SLAP II injuries is deciding whether to make a repair or tenodesis. Clinical outcomes have varied according to the patients' age, sports, or work activity. This review aims to present the evidence at points of contention regarding pathophysiology, treatment options, outcomes, return to activities, and complications of type II SLAP. MATERIAL AND

methodsThe relevant literature on SLAP injuries and their treatment options and results were identified from PubMed and a narrative review was performed.

resultsRepairing SLAP II injuries seems to show better outcomes in younger patients and athletes who perform overhead movements, while tenodesis (in its various technical options) yields better outcomes in older patients, both as a single injury or associated with other pathologies such as rotator cuff injury or tenosynovitis. On the other hand, there currently seems to be a trend of increasing the indication of tenodesis even in underage patients and athletes, given that there are reports of fewer re-operations and a faster recovery.

conclusionThe evidence is unclear as to which factors influence the failure to achieve optimal outcomes even in cases with anatomical repairs. Studies with a high level of evidence including different variables are necessary to define when to repair, perform tenodesis, and what surgical technique to use for both options.

Indexed as

Shoulder InjuriesShoulder JointTenodesisAgedArthroscopyAthletesHumansBicepsReturn to sportsSLAP complicationsSLAP outcomesSLAP repairSLAP treatmentSuperior labrum anterior and posteriorTenodesis

Identifiers

PMID35348832
OpenAlexW4220899860

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.