ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2022
Arthroscopic Modified Double-Row Biceps Tenodesis versus Labral Repair for the Treatment of Isolated Type II SLAP Lesions in Non-Overhead Athletes.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pulley ring suture increases shoulder stability after biceps tendon transposition.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the postoperative efficacy and the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic modified double-row biceps tenodesis versus labral repair.
methodsA retrospective study was conducted in 56 patients with isolated type II superior labrum anterior and posterior (SLAP) lesions from March 2015 to November 2018. Thirty patients (male:female = 17:13) were treated with labral repair, and 26 patients (male:female = 15:11) were treated with modified double-row biceps tenodesis. The average age of the labral repair group and the modified double-row biceps tenodesis group were 42.8 ± 10.6 and 40.9 ± 10.2 years, respectively. Pre- and postoperative assessments with the visual analog scale (VAS), University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores were compared between the two treatment groups. Additional outcome measures included patient satisfaction, the time to return to previous activities, workers' compensation status, and postoperative complications.
resultsAt a 2-year follow-up, the tenodesis group showed significant differences in postoperative VAS (1.5 to 1.8, respectively; p = 0.008), patient satisfaction (92.3% vs. 46.7%, p < 0.001), and recovery time to return to their previous activities (6.8 ± 1.8 vs. 8.1 ± 1.5, p = 0.007) compared to the labral repair group; however, there was no significant difference in postoperative ASES and UCLA scores between the two groups. Additionally, one patient in the tenodesis group developed persistent postoperative stiffness, which was resolved by conservative treatment. In the labral repair group, two patients presented with persistent postoperative night pain, three developed persistent postoperative stiffness, and two required a subsequent capsular release.
conclusionsCompared with the labral repair group, the arthroscopic modified double-row biceps tenodesis showed more encouraging postoperative pain reduction, earlier recovery to previous activities, and higher patient satisfaction.
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.