ReviewCureus2025
Comparative Outcomes of Suprapectoral and Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis: A Systematic Review of Fixation Techniques and Functional Results.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Treatment options for long head of biceps tendon tenodesis.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Article
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
This systematic review compares the clinical outcomes of suprapectoral versus subpectoral biceps tenodesis performed using various fixation techniques for the treatment of long head of the biceps tendon pathology. A structured search identified eligible randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses that reported functional outcomes such as the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score (ASES), Constant, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) scores. The included studies demonstrated no significant differences in postoperative functional outcomes between the two surgical approaches. However, there was a consistent trend indicating a higher complication rate associated with the suprapectoral technique. These findings suggest that while both approaches are effective in restoring function, subpectoral tenodesis may be a safer and more reliable option in appropriate patient populations.
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.