ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Clinical outcomes of long head of the biceps tendon augmentation versus partial repair in massive rotator cuff tears.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes of rotator cuff repair augmented with the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) and partial repair (PR) in patients with massive rotator cuff tears (RCTs).
methodsThis retrospective study included patients who underwent arthroscopic surgery for massive RCTs between January 2020 and May 2024. Forty-six patients were treated with rotator cuff repair augmented using the LHBT (LHBT group), and 49 patients underwent PR (PR group). Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Constant-Murley (CM), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) scores, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and shoulder range of motion (ROM). Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging was performed selectively in patients without satisfactory clinical improvement.
resultsBoth groups demonstrated statistically significant postoperative improvement in all clinical and functional parameters (p < 0.001). However, the LHBT group showed superior postoperative clinical outcomes compared with the PR group. Re-rupture requiring reoperation occurred in 3 patients in the LHBT group and in 11 patients in the PR group. Proximal LHBT rupture was observed in 1 patient. Increasing grades of fatty degeneration were associated with significantly worse postoperative clinical scores and ROM in both groups.
conclusionLHBT augmentation is a successful technique for the treatment of massive retracted RCTs and provides superior clinical outcomes compared with PR. PR remains a viable option in carefully selected patients when LHBT augmentation is not feasible.
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.