Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37359975›Full record

ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2023

Outcomes of Biceps Tenodesis Variations With Concomitant Rotator Cuff Repair: A Multicenter Database Analysis.

David P Hagan, Kevin A Hao, Joseph J King, Ramesh C Srinivasan, Thomas W Wright, Michael W Moser, Kevin W Farmer, Jonathan O Wright, Marissa Pazik, Ryan P Roach

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The Effect of Concomitant Biceps Tenodesis on Revision Surgery Rates After Primary Rotator Cuff Repair.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2024
    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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

David P HaganDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Kevin A HaoCollege of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Joseph J KingDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Ramesh C SrinivasanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Thomas W WrightDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Michael W MoserDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Kevin W FarmerDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Jonathan O WrightDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Marissa PazikDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Ryan P RoachDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
University of Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Studies to date comparing biceps tenodesis methods in the setting of concomitant rotator cuff repair (RCR) have demonstrated relatively equivalent pain and functional outcomes. Purpose: To compare biceps tenodesis constructs, locations, and techniques in patients who underwent RCR using a large multicenter database. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A global outcome database was queried for patients with medium- and large-sized tears who underwent biceps tenodesis with RCR between 2015 and 2021. Patients ≥18 years of age with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were included. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, visual analog scale for pain, and Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) scores were compared at 1 and 2 years of follow-up based on construct (anchor, screw, or suture), location (subpectoral, suprapectoral, or top of groove), and technique (inlay or onlay). Nonparametric hypothesis testing was used to compare continuous outcomes at each time point. The proportion of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at the 1- and 2-year follow-ups were compared between groups using chi-square tests. Results: A total of 1903 unique shoulder entries were analyzed. Improvement in VR-12 Mental score favored anchor and suture fixations at 1 year of follow-up ( Conclusion: Biceps tenodesis with concomitant RCR led to improved outcomes regardless of tenodesis fixation construct, location, or technique. A clear optimal tenodesis method with RCR remains to be determined. Surgeon preference and experience with various tenodesis methods as well as patient clinical presentation should continue to guide surgical decision-making.

Indexed as

anchorinlayonlayscrewshouldersubpectoralsuprapectoraltechniques

Identifiers

PMID37359975
PMCPMC10288396
OpenAlexW4381548732

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.