ArticleActa orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica2025
Does biceps tenodesis screw with forked eyelet decrease the risk of Popeye deformity when compared to traditional closed eyelet screws?
Article in Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: While many biomechanical studies have compared various biotenodesis materials for biceps tenodesis, there is a lack of research comparing different types of interference screws. This study aimed to compare the impact of a polyether ether ketone (PEEK) forked eyelet tenodesis screw with the traditional PEEK closed eyelet whipstitching technique. The focus was on evaluating the occurrence of Popeye deformity, which is an objective predictor of a successful arthroscopic suprapectoral long head of biceps tenodesis. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair and biceps tenodesis performed by a single surgeon between January 2010 and 2020 at a single center. The follow-up period was at least 1 year. Exclusion criteria included previous shoulder surgery and osteoarthritis. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the type of tenodesis anchor used: forked eyelet tenodesis screw versus closed eyelet tenodesis screw. The occurrence of Popeye deformity was compared between the 2 groups. Results: A total of 82 patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair and biceps tenodesis were evaluated, with a mean follow-up of 24.5 ± 4 months. The patients operated on using forked eyelet tenodesis screw were labeled as Group I (n=72) and those with traditional PEEK closed eyelet screw as Group II (n=10). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of age (Group I: 59.4 ± 5, Group II: 58.4 ± 4, P=.896), gender (both groups predominantly male, P=.886), and body mass index (Group I: 26.7 ± 2, Group II: 27 ± 3; P=.896). The overall rate of popeye deformity in all patients was 8% (n=7). No significant difference in popeye deformity occurrence was observed between the 2 groups (Group I: 6/72 (8.3%), Group II: 1/10 (10%); P=.998). Conclusion: The incidence of Popeye deformity after arthroscopic biceps tenodesis in patients undergoing concomitant rotator cuff repair is low. The choice of fixation anchor, whether a forked eyelet or closed eyelet PEEK anchor, does not significantly influence the occurrence of Popeye deformity. Level of Evidence: Level III, Therapeutic study.
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.