ArticleArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2023
Revision Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Demonstrates a High Patient Satisfaction and Good Functional Outcomes.
Article in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Suprapectoral Onlay Biceps Tenodesis With Metal Button or Soft-Body Anchor Is Safe and Effective During Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2026Article
- Chinese Knot Stitch Technique: A Simple Technique for Arthroscopic Biceps Tenodesis.Arthroscopy techniques · 2025Article
- Arthroscopic Subpectoral Tenodesis of the Long Head of the Biceps Brachii.Arthroscopy techniques · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To clinically evaluate a subset of patients who underwent a revision subpectoral biceps tenodesis for a clinically failed proximal biceps tenodesis. Methods: This is a retrospective case series of patients with at least 2-year follow-up who had undergone a revision biceps tenodesis after clinical failure of a proximal biceps tenodesis between January 2008 and February 2020 by a single surgeon. Patients who underwent concomitant procedures, such as revision cuff repair, were excluded. Patients with a minimum of 2 years duration status postrevision subpectoral tenodesis were contacted for informed consent and outcome data, which included Simple Shoulder Test, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, visual analog scale for pain, and subjective reporting of arm weakness and satisfaction. Results: Fourteen patients were initially identified as meeting inclusion criteria with a minimum 2-year follow-up achieved for 11 of 14 patients (78.5% follow-up). The mean follow-up time was 8.1 years (range, 2.7-14.8 years). After the primary biceps tenodesis, a mean of 8.0 ± 9.6 months passed before the revision subpectoral biceps tenodesis was performed. The average postoperative active forward elevation and adducted external rotation were 159 ± 7° and 47 ± 17°, respectively. The mean ± standard deviation (range) follow-up American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was 79 ± 23 (30-100), Simple Shoulder Test was 11 ± 2 (7-12), and visual analog scale for pain was 2.6 ± 2.8 (0-9). All 11 patients reported being satisfied with their operation and would elect to have the operation again. Conclusions: Revision subpectoral biceps tenodesis is a viable procedure for addressing patients with persistent pain following initial proximal biceps tenodesis. Although some persistent pain is common, revision subpectoral biceps tenodesis demonstrates a high patient satisfaction and good functional outcomes. Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic case series.
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.