ArticleClinics in shoulder and elbow2026
Preservation of the long head of the biceps tendon is a viable option in rotator cuff repair: a retrospective comparative study using Biceps Inflammation Section Integrity classification.
Article in Clinics in shoulder and elbow, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) is a major contributor to shoulder pain in patients with rotator cuff tears (RCT), which is why tenotomy or tenodesis is commonly performed during RCT surgical repair. However, recent evidence highlights the importance of preserving the LHBT due to its potential role as an augmentative structure and stabilizer. Currently, no clear consensus or objective criteria exist to guide decisions about whether the LHBT should be sacrificed or preserved during rotator cuff repair. In this study, we compare clinical outcomes among patients with similar degrees of LHBT degeneration who were treated either with tenotomy (±tenodesis) or with debridement and radiofrequency ablation.
methodsWe performed a retrospective comparative study. Group I was composed of 75 patients (mean age, 64.90±4.60; female, 46; male, 29) with large RCTs who underwent arthroscopic cuff repair associated with LHBT debridement and radiofrequency ablation for a Biceps Inflammation Section Integrity (BISI) score <5. Group II was composed of 86 patients (mean age, 65.70±3.58; female, 48; male, 38) with large RCTs who underwent arthroscopic cuff repair associated with LHBT tenotomy/tenodesis for a BISI score <5. All RC repairs were performed using a single-row technique with titanium anchors. Clinical outcomes were evaluated 1 year postoperatively using the Constant-Murley Score, the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and patient satisfaction surveys. Group comparisons were conducted using standard tests for continuous and categorical variables.
resultsAt the 1-year follow-up, the mean Constant scores were 76 in the preservation group and 78 in the tenotomy group, with no statistically significant difference (P=0.16). Both groups reported low pain levels (mean VAS, 2). Similar strength deficits and partial limitations in shoulder rotations were observed in both groups. Patient satisfaction rates were 79% vs 81%, respectively.
conclusionsRoutine sacrifice of the LHBT during rotator cuff repair may not be necessary for mild to moderate degeneration (BISI <5). Biceps preservation may help maintain shoulder biomechanics and offer advantages for future revision surgeries. Level of evidence: 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.