ArticleJSES international2024
Proximal humerus open reduction internal fixation with and without biceps tenodesis: assessment of early clinical outcomes.
Article in JSES international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The role of biceps tenodesis (BT) during open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) of proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) remains unclear. A subset of patients undergoing ORIF have persistent pain with unclear etiology. The purpose of our study was to compare outcomes of ORIF of PHFs with and without concomitant BT. We hypothesize patients undergoing BT at the time of ORIF will have improved patient-reported outcome scores with fewer secondary procedures related to treatment of the biceps. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, all patients undergoing ORIF for a PHF at a single level one trauma center from January 2019 to June 2022 were reviewed. Patients under the age of 18 were excluded. Primary outcomes were patient-reported outcomes measurement information system physical function, depression, and pain interference scores at 5 time points up to final follow-up. Secondary outcomes included total operative time, complications, subsequent procedures, steroid injections, and range of motion. Chi-square tests were performed for categorical values and paired t-tests for continuous variables. Results: 71 patients met inclusion criteria: 41 undergoing ORIF without BT and 30 undergoing ORIF with BT. Average follow-up was 11 months. There were no statistically significant differences in patient demographics between groups. There were no differences in patient-reported outcomes measurement information system scores at any time point postoperatively. At final follow-up patients in the ORIF with BT group had higher forward flexion than those who did not undergo BT (142 vs. 123 degrees, respectively, Conclusion: BT performed during ORIF of PHFs did not result in significantly different functional or patient-reported outcomes between groups, except for greater forward flexion at final follow-up. Although BT was done more commonly in severe PHFs, patients in both groups had similar rates of subsequent biceps-related procedures and revision surgery.
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.