ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2026
Clinical Effect of Superior Capsular Reconstruction With Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Autograft: Biceps Tenotomy Versus Retention in Massive Rotator Cuff Tears.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2026. 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
Abstract
backgroundMassive rotator cuff tears (RCTs) often lead to superior migration and poor function. While superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) using the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) autograft is a promising technique, the optimal management of its distal portion (tenotomy vs. retention) remains unclear.
objectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes of SCR by a long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) autograft with biceps tenotomy or not in massive RCTs.
methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, we enrolled and followed 59 patients following SCR using the LHBT between 2016 and 2021. Patients were divided into two groups based on intraoperative management of the distal LHBT: the LHBT-retained group and the LHBT-tenotomy group. Statistical comparisons included repeated-measures ANOVA, two-way mixed-design ANOVA, chi-square/Fisher's exact tests, and Mann-Whitney U tests as appropriate. The visual analog scale (VAS), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, constant score and range of motion (ROM), and the acromiohumeral distance (AHD) were assessed as outcome measures.
resultsNo major surgical complications were observed in any patient after surgery. The VAS score (7.0 vs. 0.6), AHD (3.2 ± 1.1 vs. 7.8 ± 0.8 mm), ASES (38 vs. 92), constant score (41 vs. 80), and ROM were statistically improved compared to their preoperative values. All patients were further subdivided into two groups according to the management of the distal end of the LHBT after transposition and fixation (retained group: the distal part of the LHBT was retained; tenotomy group: the distal part of the LHBT was resected). The two groups had comparable baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. We found that tenotomy group showed more significant function improvement within 12 months postoperatively (p < 0.05) compared with retained group. Nevertheless, compared with tenotomy group, the AHD of retsained group increased by 1.9 mm (5.0 ± 1.2 mm vs. 3.1 ± 0.8mm). Postoperative imaging assessment at 2 years revealed low and comparable retear rates (grades IV-V) between groups (retained group: 9.7% vs. tenotomy group: 7.1%).
conclusionSCR using the LHBT autograft significantly improves outcomes in massive RCTs. While both techniques are effective, patients with distal biceps tenotomy (tenotomy group) exhibited superior early functional recovery (within 12 months), whereas those with an intact distal LHBT (retained group) demonstrated significantly greater improvement in AHD. Both groups achieved comparably low retear rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4.
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.