ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Biceps augmentation to improve the footprint coverage and functional outcomes in the treatment of large to massive rotator cuff tears.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe biceps tendon can be used as an option for augmentation in large to massive rotator cuff (RC) tears, although no definitive recommendations can be given. The purpose of the study was to compare the functional outcomes of arthroscopic RC partial repair with biceps augmentation with RC partial repair alone in treatment of large to massive tears.
methodsA retrospective review of 175 patients with large to massive RC tears was conducted, and 45 patients who underwent RC partial repair with biceps augmentation were finally included. One or two margin convergences with the biceps tendon were performed to reduce the tear gap, and torn RC was repaired to its original footprint using a combination of RC tendons and biceps tendon. Patients treated with the RC partial repair with biceps augmentation were placed in the biceps cohort and were age- and sex-matched 1:1 with a second cohort treated with RC partial repair alone, referred to as the partial cohort. We defined acceptable footprint coverage as complete coverage of the humeral head with a small residual footprint defect remaining after surgery. All patients were evaluated preoperatively and were followed up with a visual analog scale for pain, Constant score, radiographs, and ultrasonography at a minimum of 24 months.
resultsA total of 45 patients were included in the biceps cohort and 45 in the partial cohort. There were statistical differences in acceptable footprint coverage (34 vs. 15 cases, p = .01), average acromiohumeral interval at the final follow-up (8.6 vs. 7.5 mm, p = .02), average Constant scores at the final follow-up (79.8 vs. 75.2 points, p = .03), and ultrasonographic findings of partial-to-intact healing (38 vs. 17 cases, p = .01) between the two cohorts. Overall satisfactory outcomes were achieved in most patients regardless of biceps augmentation, the Constant scores of biceps cohort were significantly higher at final follow-up.
conclusionsArthroscopic RC partial repair with biceps augmentation was associated with increased acromiohumeral interval and better functional outcomes compared with RC partial repair alone, and improved footprint coverage might affect the outcomes. STUDY
designPrognostic, cohort study, therapeutic Level III.
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.