SynthesisBMJ open2022
Clinical effectiveness of tenotomy versus tenodesis for long head of biceps pathology: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- The Popeye sign: beyond the bulge-a proposal for a standardized definition and classification.Clinics in shoulder and elbow · 2026Article
- Comparison of subacromial volume and clinical parameters of patients who underwent biceps tenotomy or tenodesis due to long head of biceps tendon pathologies during rotator cuff repair surgery.Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica · 2026Article
- Treatment options for long head of biceps tendon tenodesis.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Article
- Red Staining of the LHB and the Rotator Interval on Arthroscopy-A Valid Indicator of Symptomatic Inflammation? A Machine Learning Assisted Investigation.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025Article
- Ultrasound findings and clinical testing for preoperative diagnosis of long head of the biceps pathology.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- CORR Insights®: Long Head of Biceps Tendinopathy Is Associated With Age and Cuff Tendinopathy on MRI Obtained for Evaluation of Shoulder Pain.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2025Article
- Excellent functional outcomes in patients aged 40 years or older undergoing isolated rotator cuff repair for rotator cuff tears after primary traumatic anteroinferior shoulder dislocation.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Article
- The impact of biceps tenotomy/tenodesis on Popeye sign incidence and functional outcome.JSES international · 2025Article
- Arthroscopic Inlay Biceps Tenodesis Using a Tendon-Docking Anchor.Arthroscopy techniques · 2025Article
- Long Head of Biceps Tenodesis for Maintaining Inherent Length and Uniform Tension at the Bicipital Groove: Suprapectoral Double-Row Technique With All-Suture Anchors.Arthroscopy techniques · 2024Article
- MRI findings and clinical testing for preoperative diagnosis of long head of the biceps pathology.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Biceps tenotomy vs. tenodesis: an ACS-NSQIP analysis of postoperative outcomes and utilization trends.JSES international · 2024Article
- Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Biceps Tenodesis for Isolated Biceps Tendinopathy: Results From 23 Patients.Cureus · 2024Article
- 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
- Arthroscopic Superior Capsular Reconstruction With the Long Head of the Biceps Tendon to Reinforce the Repair of a Supraspinatus Tear and Increase Healing.Arthroscopy techniques · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe comparative clinical effectiveness of common surgical techniques to address long head of biceps (LHB) pathology is unclear. We synthesised the evidence to compare the clinical effectiveness of tenotomy versus tenodesis.
designA systematic review and meta-analysis using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. DATA SOURCES: EMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library of randomised controlled trials were searched through 31 October 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials, reporting patient reported outcome measures, comparing LHB tenotomy with tenodesis for LHB pathology, with or without concomitant rotator cuff pathology. Studies including patients treated for superior labral anterior-posterior tears were excluded. No language limits were employed. All publications from database inception to 31 October 2021 were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Screening was performed by two authors independently. A third author reviewed the article, where consensus for inclusion was required. Data were extracted by two authors. Data were synthesised using RevMan. Inverse variance statistics and a random effects model were used.
results860 patients from 11 RCTs (426 tenotomy vs 434 tenodesis) were included. Pooled analysis of patient-reported functional outcome measures data demonstrated comparable outcomes (n=10 studies; 403 tenotomy vs 416 tenodesis; standardised mean difference (SMD): 0.14, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.32, p=0.13). There was no significant difference for pain (Visual Analogue Scale) (n=8 studies; 345 tenotomy vs 350 tenodesis; MD: -0.11, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.06, p=0.21). Tenodesis resulted in a lower rate of Popeye deformity (n=10 studies; 401 tenotomy vs 410 tenodesis; OR: 0.29, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.45, p<0.00001). Tenotomy demonstrated shorter operative time (n=4 studies; 204 tenotomy vs 201 tenodesis; MD 15.2, 95% CI 1.06 to 29.36, p<0.00001).
conclusionsAside from a lower rate of cosmetic deformity, tenodesis yielded no significant clinical benefit to tenotomy for addressing LHB pathology. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020198658.
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.