AAOS 2016: Arthroscopic proximal versus open subpectoral biceps tenodesis .
Prospective Randomized Study of Arthroscopic Proximal vs. Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis: Is One Better?
129 patients scheduled for biceps tenodesis were randomized to either an arthroscopic proximal approach or open subpectoral approach. The purpose of this study was to compared pain, function, and complications between the two groups. Follow-up was performed for an average of 11.3 months postoperatively. Results demonstrated that patients in both study groups significantly improved from baseline measurements for all clinical outcomes, and that the two surgical techniques did not yield any significant differences. Revision rate was marginally higher for patients in the arthroscopic proximal biceps tenodesis group (8.6%) compared to the open subpectoral tenodesis group (1.4%).
Unlock the Full ACE Report
You have access to 4 more FREE articles this month.
Click below to unlock and view this ACE Reports
Unlock Now
Critical appraisals of the latest, high-impact randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in orthopaedics
Access to OrthoEvidence podcast content, including collaborations with the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, interviews with internationally recognized surgeons, and roundtable discussions on orthopaedic news and topics
Subscription to The Pulse, a twice-weekly evidence-based newsletter designed to help you make better clinical decisions
Exclusive access to original content articles, including in-house systematic reviews, and articles on health research methods and hot orthopaedic topics
Or upgrade today and gain access to all OrthoEvidencecontent for as little as $1.99 per week.
Already have an account? Log in
0 of 4 monthly FREE articles unlocked
