Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38162261›Full record

ReviewJournal of orthopaedics2024

Surgical management of SLAP lesions: Which technique has better surgical outcomes?

Eslam Abourisha, Mohamed Sakr, Ananth Srinivasan, Harvinder P Singh

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Eslam AbourishaUniversity Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, United Kingdom.
Mohamed SakrManchester University NHS Trust, United Kingdom.
Ananth SrinivasanUniversity Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, United Kingdom.
Harvinder P SinghUniversity Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, United Kingdom.
University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust · GBManchester University NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The gold-standard surgical management for superior labral anterior to posterior (SLAP) lesions is unclear. This meta-analysis compares the outcomes of different surgical SLAP lesion management techniques including labral repair, long head of biceps (LHB) tenodesis and LHB tenotomy with consideration to clinical scores, return to sports, re-operation, range-of-motion and patient satisfaction. Methods: PRISMA guidelines were adhered. Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Central, Science direct and EMBASE were searched using relevant keywords. Eligible studies were screened, data extracted and synthesised using Review Manager (Version 5.4.1). Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted. Randomised control and clinical trials regarding SLAP lesion management in patients over 18 years old were included. Studies were excluded if patients had concomitant massive tears of the rotator cuff, Bankart lesions or instability of the shoulder. Results: Patient satisfaction with LHB tenodesis was superior to superior labral repair. No difference was demonstrated with respect to ASES score, pain VAS score, return to sports and pre-injury activities, reoperation rate or range-of-motion. LHB tenodesis and LHB tenotomy show no difference in ASES score or post operative deformity in management of SLAP lesions. Discussion: High-quality, standardised randomised control studies between the different surgical techniques is warranted.

Indexed as

Labral repairSLAP lesionSuperior labrum from anterior to posteriorTenodesisTenotomy

Identifiers

PMID38162261
PMCPMC10755497
OpenAlexW4389101132

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.