To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

Similar Outcomes with Open Subpectoral and Arthroscopic IA Tenodesis in RC Tears with LHBT Pathology

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Ace Report Cover
August 2019

Similar Outcomes with Open Subpectoral and Arthroscopic IA Tenodesis in RC Tears with LHBT Pathology

Vol: 8| Issue: 8| Number:29| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Randomized Trial
OE Level Evidence:2
Journal Level of Evidence:2

Rotator cuff tear with concomitant long head of biceps tendon (LHBT) degeneration: what is the preferred choice? Open subpectoral versus arthroscopic intraarticular tenodesis

J Orthop Traumatol. 2019 Jul 5;20(1):26.

Contributing Authors:
M Mardani-Kivi S Keyhani MH Ebrahim-Zadeh K Hashemi-Motlagh K Saheb-Ekhtiari

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

Synopsis

69 patients with repairable rotator cuff tears and concomitant degeneration of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) were randomized to receive a rotator cuff repair with either an open sub-pectoral (SP) tenodesis or an arthroscopic intra-articular (IA) tenodesis of the LHBT. The primary outcomes of interest were the Constant Shoulder Score and the Simple Shoulder Test (SST). Secondary outcome...

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.

Continue