A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Comparing Clinical Outcomes After Concurrent Rotator Cuff Repair and Long Head Biceps Tenodesis or Tenotomy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: A comparison of clinical outcomes after long head of biceps (LHB) tenotomy or tenodesis performed concurrently with rotator cuff repair (RCR) is of interest to physicians and patients. OBJECTIVE: A systematic review of clinical outcome studies examining LHB tenotomy or tenodesis performed concurrently with RCR. Secondarily, perform a meta-analysis of data from comparative studies. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1946 to week 30 of 2013) and EMBASE (1980 to week 30 of 2013). STUDY SELECTION: Levels 1 through 4 studies reporting clinical outcomes of concurrent RCR and LHB tenotomy or tenodesis with minimum 1-year follow-up. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers identified eligible studies and applied the exclusion criteria. Clinical outcome data, including functional outcome score(s), biceps deformity and cramping, and patient satisfaction, were extracted. Clinical outcome data from included studies were pooled (weighted according to study size) and reported. A meta-analysis was performed only on outcomes extracted from comparative studies (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Twelve studies (N = 565 patients; mean age, 61.3 years; 46.3% men) were included. Of these, 6 (N = 263) included RCR and LHB tenotomy and 9 (N = 302) included RCR and LHB tenodesis. A meta-analysis was performed on 3 comparative studies (levels 1 and 2), demonstrating that the postoperative Constant score at a mean follow-up of 25.5 months was significantly greater after tenodesis (92.8 [tenodesis] vs 90.6 [tenotomy], P < 0.01); however, this difference was less than the reported minimal clinically important difference of 10.4 points. Similarly, the rate of biceps deformity was significantly less after tenodesis (15.5% [tenotomy] vs 3.9% [tenodesis], P < 0.01); however, most patients were not bothered by it. There were no significant differences in the rate of biceps cramping or patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Although the postoperative Constant score and rate of biceps deformity favor LHB tenodesis statistically, the clinical significance appears negligible.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.030 | 0.006 |
| 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 it