ReviewFrontiers in surgery2026
Treatment options for long head of biceps tendon tenodesis.
Review in Frontiers in 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) is frequently described as a primary "pain generator" in anterior shoulder pain. While both tenotomy and tenodesis are commonly employed for LHBT pathologies, no consensus exists on the optimal procedure, as neither has demonstrated clear superiority. It is widely recognized, however, that tenotomy is associated with a risk of "Popeye" deformity and aesthetic concerns, whereas tenodesis mitigates these issues. The tenodesis literature reveals a variety of LHBT fixation methods, which differ primarily in the location of fixation, the choice of implants, and the suturing technique. This article classifies these techniques into two main groups (subpectoral and non-subpectoral tenodesis) to provide an overview of the surgical techniques and to contrast their advantages and disadvantages, thereby assisting surgeons in individualized decision-making based on factors such as tendon quality, bone density, economic considerations, injury type, cosmetic concerns, and surgeon experience.
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.