ArticleUlusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES2026
Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis: Inlay or onlay technique?
Article in Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe long-term outcomes of arthroscopic tenodesis using the onlay (groove) and inlay (groove) techniques remain debated with respect to tendon healing and graft stability. The aim of our study was to identify the optimal tenodesis strategy by comparing the effects of arthroscopic inlay and onlay techniques on postoperative complication rates, patient satisfaction, and functional recovery.
methodsBetween 2015 and 2021, the treatment outcomes of 54 patients who underwent arthroscopic biceps tenodesis using either the inlay or onlay technique for the management of superior labrum anterior-to-posterior (SLAP) lesions or biceps tendon de-generation were retrospectively evaluated. Patient demographics and clinical variables, including age, sex, side of involvement, follow-up duration, visual analog scale (VAS) score, Constant score, postoperative cramping, and complications, were recorded. Group 1 consisted of 28 patients who underwent inlay tenodesis, while Group 2 included 26 patients who underwent onlay tenodesis.
resultsPostoperatively, VAS scores improved substantially in both groups, with no significant difference between Group 1 (0.21±0.45) and Group 2 (0.18±0.37) (p=0.789). Similarly, postoperative Constant scores were high in both groups, with Group 1 at 92.73±8.23 and Group 2 at 95.47±5.12; this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.145). The mean recovery time was significantly shorter in Group 2 compared to Group 1. Specifically, the mean recovery time was 12.3±4.8 weeks in Group 1 and 8.3±3.72 weeks in Group 2 (p=0.01). Cramping was reported in 21.42% of patients in Group 1 and 7.69% in Group 2; however, this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.253). In Group 1, Popeye deformity developed in two patients (7.1%), whereas in Group 2 it de-veloped in one patient (3.8%).
conclusionThe present study demonstrates that both inlay and onlay arthroscopic biceps tenodesis techniques are effective surgical options for managing biceps tendon degeneration and superior labrum anterior-to-posterior lesions. However, the findings suggest a potential advantage of the onlay technique, as it is associated with faster recovery and a lower risk of complications.
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.