ArticleCureus2022
Trends in Repair vs. Biceps Tenodesis for Superior Labrum From Anterior to Posterior (SLAP) Tear: An Epidemiological Study.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Arthroscopic versus open approaches in shoulder surgery: trends in Medicare service utilization and reimbursement.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2026Article
- An Expedited Sling Immobilization Protocol After Isolated Biceps Tenodesis Results in Clinical and Patient-Reported Postoperative Outcomes Equivalent to a Standard Rehabilitation Protocol.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Long-term results of arthroscopic repair of type II SLAP lesions in sports: assessment of return to pre-injury playing level and critical risk factors for complication.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2024Article
- SLAP repair and bicep tenodesis: a comparison of utilization and revision rates for SLAP tears.JSES international · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background The purpose of this epidemiologic study was to report general trends in the number of superior labrum from anterior to posterior (SLAP) tear repairs and biceps tenodesis performed along with the patient and hospital characteristics within the period of 2016-2018. Methods National Ambulatory Surgery Sample (NASS) database was used as the source of data for this epidemiologic study of the United States population. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes were utilized to identify patients that underwent SLAP repair or biceps tenodesis between 2016 and 2018. Results The national estimates of encounters from the NASS database reported 29,931 SLAP repairs in 2016 and each subsequent year saw a decline to 26,509 repairs in 2017 and 23,451 repairs in 2018 (p<0.0001). Conversely, in 2016 there were 19,221 biceps tenodeses and each subsequent year saw an increase to 21,625 biceps tenodeses in 2017 and 22,867 biceps tenodeses in 2018 (p<0.0001). Conclusion The results of our epidemiologic study found that the total number of SLAP repairs is decreasing while biceps tenodesis is increasing. SLAP repairs were performed for younger patients and biceps tenodeses were performed for older patients. This study demonstrates that clinical practice reflective of recent evidence regarding optimal age for SLAP repair is slow to change. While there is ongoing debate as to the gold standard for the surgical management of SLAP tear lesions, our study confirms that there is an increasing trend among orthopedic surgeons favoring biceps tenodesis which may reflect the increasing literature evidence supporting better clinical outcomes after biceps tenodesis compared to SLAP repair.
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.