Tenodesis of the Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Has No Detrimental Impact on the Postoperative Outcome After Supraspinatus Tendon Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction While several studies have compared tenotomy and tenodesis, few studies have examined whether performing a tenodesis of the long head of the biceps (LHB), when indicated, in patients who have undergone rotator cuff reconstruction has a detrimental impact on clinical and radiological postoperative outcomes. The present study aimed to investigate whether performing a tenodesis of the LHB has a damaging effect on the clinical and radiological outcome after rotator cuff reconstruction. Material and methods Fifty-one patients surgically treated for supraspinatus (SSP) tendon tears were included. All included patients received a reconstruction of the SSP, depending on the LHB surgery performed, patients were divided into two groups: 1) with concomitant tenodesis of the LHB and 2) without surgery of the LHB. Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Score (ASES), Constant, Oxford, and LHB scores were assessed at 2.3 ± 0.3 years postoperatively. All patients underwent clinical examination, including range of motion and force measurements. Furthermore, patients received an MRI scan of the operated shoulder two years postoperatively. Two blinded observers independently analyzed the integrity and quality of the rotator cuff on postoperative MRI using Sugaya and Castricini classifications. Clinical and radiological results were compared between both groups. Results All analyzed clinical scores, ranges of motion, and force measurements revealed no difference between both groups. Except for fatty infiltration (0° = 81% (21 of 26) vs. 68% (17 of 25); 1° = 15% (four of 26) vs. 28% (seven of 25); 2° = 4% (one of 26) vs. 4% (one of 25); and 3° = 0% (0 of 26) vs. 4% (one of 25); p < 0.01), no differences between both groups concerning the integrity (re-rupture rate = 27% (seven of 26) vs. 20% (five of 25); p = 0.39) and quality of the SSP tendon were found. Conclusions Tenodesis of the LHB performed in addition to rotator cuff repair is not associated with detrimental clinical outcomes than rotator cuff repair without surgery of the LHB. Except for fatty infiltration, which was lower in the tenodesis group, the results of the present study suggest that concomitant tenodesis of the LHB produces in patients who received rotator cuff repair have no detrimental effect in terms of clinical outcomes and re-rupture rates as well as tendon quality. Therefore, when indicated, simultaneous tenodesis of the LHB appears to be a safe and effective procedure that has no negative impact on the postoperative outcome after SSP tendon reconstruction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".