ArticleJSES international2024
Biceps tenotomy vs. tenodesis in patients undergoing transtendinous repair of partial thickness rotator cuff tears.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with partial thickness rotator cuff tears (PTRCTs) often present with concurrent pathology of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT). To address both conditions simultaneously, long head of the biceps (LHB) tenotomy or tenodesis can be performed at the time of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR). This study aims to compare postoperative shoulder active range of motion (AROM) and complications following transtendinous RCR with concurrent LHB tenodesis or tenotomy. Methods: A total of 90 patients with PTRCTs met inclusion criteria for this study. Patients who underwent tear-completion-and-repair, revision surgery, or open repair of the LHB tendon were excluded. Patients were stratified into tenotomy, arthroscopic suprapectoral tenodesis, or no biceps operation cohorts and were propensity matched 1:1:1 on age, sex, body mass index, and smoking status. Primary outcome measures included AROM in forward flexion, abduction, external rotation, and internal rotation at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months postoperatively. The development of severe stiffness and rates of rotator cuff retear at final follow-up were recorded as secondary outcomes. Results: When comparing the tenotomy and tenodesis cohorts, tenotomy patients were found to have increased AROM at 3 months in forward flexion (153.2° vs. 130.1°, Conclusion: Despite significant differences in absolute AROM between cohorts, the decision to perform tenotomy or tenodesis was not found to differentially affect rates of AROM recovery for patients undergoing arthroscopic transtendinous RCR for PTRCT. Notably, however, transient stiffness complications were more commonly observed in smokers, and data trends suggested an increased risk of stiffness for patients undergoing LHB tenodesis. Overall, postoperative stiffness is likely multifactorial and attributable to both patient- and procedure-specific factors, and LHB tenotomy may be more appropriate for patients with risk factors for developing stiffness postoperatively.
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.