Surgical indications for long head biceps tenodesis: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Tenodesis as a treatment for a symptomatic long head of biceps (LHB) tendon is becoming more prevalent and new techniques exist which are purported to make the procedure faster and more effective. The determination of appropriate surgical indications for the procedure will facilitate proper analysis and comparisons of the varied techniques. This review analyses the reported indications in the literature in an attempt to guide future research and treatment. METHODS: The EMBASE and MEDLINE databases were searched to identify surgical studies that report indications for LHB tenodesis. After title, abstract searches, and full-text reviews, 39 studies were included. Study information was extracted including author, publication date, patient numbers, patient age, follow-up period, procedure performed, surgical indications, and study design. RESULTS: Although indications were variable and often non-descriptive, of the 39 included studies, the most common indications for LHB tenodesis were partial tearing (51 %), instability (49 %), or tenosynovitis (44 %), SLAP tear (28 %), and positive clinical exam for LHB pain (26 %). Most studies were of low quality of evidence, such as case series (33.0 %) and retrospective studies (43.5 %), and were of low-to-moderate methodological quality. CONCLUSION: Although indications used for LHB tenodesis are inconsistently reported, the most common indications include LHB tearing, instability, and tenosynovitis. Other indications include clinical exam indicating LHB pathology, SLAP tears and subjective shoulder pain. Rigorous reporting of indications and preoperative/operative findings should be emphasized in future studies, allowing surgeons to appropriately analyse outcomes of LHB tenodesis of different techniques within patient groups with distinct indications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review, Level IV.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".