Clinical Effectiveness of Various Surgical Procedures Addressing Long Head of Biceps Pathology: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Hartland, Alexander W.; Islam, Raisa; Teoh, Kar Hao; Rashid, Mustafa S.

doi:10.29337/ijsp.139

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 21 A protocol for the study was registered with International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ ), and published prior to study commencement. 22 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Clinical effectiveness of tenotomy versus tenodesis for long head of biceps pathology: a systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe comparative clinical effectiveness of common surgical techniques to address long head of biceps (LHB) pathology is unclear. We synthesised the evidence to compare the clinical effectiveness of tenotomy versus tenodesis.DesignA systematic review and meta-analysis using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.Data sourcesEMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library of randomised controlled trials were searched through 31 October 2021.Eligibility criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials, reporting patient reported outcome measures, comparing LHB tenotomy with tenodesis for LHB pathology, with or without concomitant rotator cuff pathology. Studies including patients treated for superior labral anterior–posterior tears were excluded. No language limits were employed. All publications from database inception to 31 October 2021 were included.Data extraction and synthesisScreening was performed by two authors independently. A third author reviewed the article, where consensus for inclusion was required. Data were extracted by two authors. Data were synthesised using RevMan. Inverse variance statistics and a random effects model were used.Results860 patients from 11 RCTs (426 tenotomy vs 434 tenodesis) were included. Pooled analysis of patient-reported functional outcome measures data demonstrated comparable outcomes (n=10 studies; 403 tenotomy vs 416 tenodesis; standardised mean difference (SMD): 0.14, 95% CI −0.04 to 0.32, p=0.13). There was no significant difference for pain (Visual Analogue Scale) (n=8 studies; 345 tenotomy vs 350 tenodesis; MD: −0.11, 95% CI −0.28 to 0.06, p=0.21). Tenodesis resulted in a lower rate of Popeye deformity (n=10 studies; 401 tenotomy vs 410 tenodesis; OR: 0.29, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.45, p<0.00001). Tenotomy demonstrated shorter operative time (n=4 studies; 204 tenotomy vs 201 tenodesis; MD 15.2, 95% CI 1.06 to 29.36, p<0.00001).ConclusionsAside from a lower rate of cosmetic deformity, tenodesis yielded no significant clinical benefit to tenotomy for addressing LHB pathology.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020198658.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This study is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement 21. A protocol for the study was registered with International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/), and published prior to study commencement 22…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%