Shoulder Arthroscopy Does Not Adequately Visualize Pathology of the Long Head of Biceps Tendon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pulling the long head of the biceps tendon into the joint at arthroscopy is a common method for evaluation of tendinopathic lesions. However, the rate of missed diagnoses when using this technique is reported to be as high as 30% to 50%. HYPOTHESIS: Tendon excursion achieved using a standard arthroscopic probe does not allow adequate visualization of extra-articular sites of predilection of tendinopathy. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive laboratory study. METHODS: Seven forequarter amputation cadaveric specimens were evaluated. The biceps tendon was tagged to mark the intra-articular length and the maximum excursions achieved using a probe and a grasper in both beach-chair and lateral positions. Statistical analyses were performed using analysis of variance to compare means. RESULTS: The mean intra-articular and extra-articular lengths of the tendons were 23.9 and 82.3 mm, respectively. The length of tendon that could be visualized by pulling it into the joint with a probe through the anterior midglenoid portal was not significantly different when using either lateral decubitus (mean ± SD, 29.9 ± 3.89 mm; 95% CI, 25.7-34 mm) or beach-chair positions (32.7 ± 4.23 mm; 95% CI, 28.6-36.8 mm). The maximum length of the overall tendon visualized in any specimen using a standard technique was 37 mm. Although there was a trend to greater excursion using a grasper through the same portal, this was not statistically significant. However, using a grasper through the anterosuperior portal gave a significantly greater mean excursion than any other technique (46.7 ± 4.31 mm; 95% CI, 42.6-50.8 mm), but this still failed to allow evaluation of Denard zone C. CONCLUSION: Pulling the tendon into the joint with a probe via an anterior portal does not allow visualization of distal sites of predilection of pathology. Surgeons should be aware that this technique is inadequate and can result in missed diagnoses. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study demonstrates that glenohumeral arthroscopy does not allow visualization of common areas of pathology of the long head of the biceps tendon.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".