Clinical Outcomes of Arthroscopic Tenodesis Versus Tenotomy for Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials and Cohort Studies
Background: Controversy exists concerning whether tenotomy or tenodesis is the optimal surgical treatment option for proximal biceps tendon lesions. Purpose: To evaluate the clinical outcomes after arthroscopic tenodesis and tenotomy in the treatment of long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) lesions....
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine 2021-04, Vol.9 (4), p.2325967121993805-2325967121993805 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 2325967121993805 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 2325967121993805 |
container_title | Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine |
container_volume | 9 |
creator | Liu, Hongzhi Song, Xinqiu Liu, Pei Yu, Huachen Zhang, Qidong Guo, Wanshou |
description | Background:
Controversy exists concerning whether tenotomy or tenodesis is the optimal surgical treatment option for proximal biceps tendon lesions.
Purpose:
To evaluate the clinical outcomes after arthroscopic tenodesis and tenotomy in the treatment of long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) lesions.
Study Design:
Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.
Methods:
A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that compared the clinical efficacy of tenotomy with that of tenodesis for LHBT lesions. A standardized data extraction form was predesigned to obtain bibliographic information of the study as well as patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome data. A random-effects model was used to pool quantitative data from the primary outcomes.
Results:
A total of 21 eligible studies were separated into 3 methodological groups: (1) 4 RCTs with level 1 evidence, (2) 3 RCTs and 4 prospective cohort studies with level 2 evidence, and (3) 10 retrospective cohort studies with level 3 to 4 evidence. Analysis of the 3 groups demonstrated a significantly higher risk of the Popeye sign after tenotomy versus tenodesis (group 1: risk ratio [RR], 3.29 [95% CI, 1.92-5.49]; group 2: RR, 2.35 [95% CI, 1.43-3.85]; and group 3: RR, 2.57 [95% CI, 1.33-4.98]). Arm cramping pain remained significantly higher after tenotomy only in the retrospective cohort group (RR, 2.17 [95% CI, 1.20-3.95]). The Constant score for tenotomy was significantly worse than that for tenodesis in the prospective cohort group (standardized mean difference [SMD], –0.47 [95% CI, –0.73 to –0.21]), as were the forearm supination strength index (SMD, –0.75 [95% CI, –1.28 to –0.21]) and the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) score (SMD, –0.60 [95% CI, –0.94 to –0.27]).
Conclusion:
The results demonstrated that compared with tenodesis, tenotomy had a higher risk of a Popeye deformity in all 3 study groups; worse functional outcomes in terms of the Constant score, forearm supination strength index, and SST score according to prospective cohort studies; and a higher incidence of arm cramping pain according to retrospective cohort studies. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/2325967121993805 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8071980</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_2325967121993805</sage_id><sourcerecordid>2528432283</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c462t-a0f10d4be32c1686a7cd1d56f31e0653d59c265807df125ca22032f01a6f0d3b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kk1vEzEQhlcIRKvSOydkiQuXBX-svbsckEIEFCmoUhu4Wo49m7jatYPtLQo_jt-GNymhVMIXW-88887YnqJ4TvBrQur6DWWUt6ImlLQtazB_VJxOUjlpj--dT4rzGG9wXg0nLaufFieMtW2NeX1a_Jr31lmtenQ5Ju0HiMh3aBbSJvio_dZqtATnDUQb0TcIcYx7Iflhhzof0MK7NboAZaa8tAH03mrY7iHjHVrkRO_iWzRD17uYYFApW17BrYUfSDmDvkBSpXKq300VssdVVv1gf4JBx96Wwao-7vm53_iQ0HUajYX4rHjS5Qic3-1nxdePH5bzi3Jx-enzfLYodSVoKhXuCDbVChjVRDRC1doQw0XHCGDBmeGtpoI3uDYdoVwrSjGjHSZKdNiwFTsr3h18t-NqAKPBpaB6uQ12UGEnvbLy34izG7n2tzJbkrbB2eDVnUHw30eISQ42auh75cCPUVJOm4pR2rCMvnyA3vgx5BeaqKqqSNMIkil8oHT-qBigOzZDsJzmQz6cj5zy4v4ljgl_piED5QGIag1_q_7X8DcAtcU-</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2544418861</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Clinical Outcomes of Arthroscopic Tenodesis Versus Tenotomy for Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials and Cohort Studies</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Sage Journals GOLD Open Access 2024</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Liu, Hongzhi ; Song, Xinqiu ; Liu, Pei ; Yu, Huachen ; Zhang, Qidong ; Guo, Wanshou</creator><creatorcontrib>Liu, Hongzhi ; Song, Xinqiu ; Liu, Pei ; Yu, Huachen ; Zhang, Qidong ; Guo, Wanshou</creatorcontrib><description>Background:
Controversy exists concerning whether tenotomy or tenodesis is the optimal surgical treatment option for proximal biceps tendon lesions.
Purpose:
To evaluate the clinical outcomes after arthroscopic tenodesis and tenotomy in the treatment of long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) lesions.
Study Design:
Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.
Methods:
A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that compared the clinical efficacy of tenotomy with that of tenodesis for LHBT lesions. A standardized data extraction form was predesigned to obtain bibliographic information of the study as well as patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome data. A random-effects model was used to pool quantitative data from the primary outcomes.
Results:
A total of 21 eligible studies were separated into 3 methodological groups: (1) 4 RCTs with level 1 evidence, (2) 3 RCTs and 4 prospective cohort studies with level 2 evidence, and (3) 10 retrospective cohort studies with level 3 to 4 evidence. Analysis of the 3 groups demonstrated a significantly higher risk of the Popeye sign after tenotomy versus tenodesis (group 1: risk ratio [RR], 3.29 [95% CI, 1.92-5.49]; group 2: RR, 2.35 [95% CI, 1.43-3.85]; and group 3: RR, 2.57 [95% CI, 1.33-4.98]). Arm cramping pain remained significantly higher after tenotomy only in the retrospective cohort group (RR, 2.17 [95% CI, 1.20-3.95]). The Constant score for tenotomy was significantly worse than that for tenodesis in the prospective cohort group (standardized mean difference [SMD], –0.47 [95% CI, –0.73 to –0.21]), as were the forearm supination strength index (SMD, –0.75 [95% CI, –1.28 to –0.21]) and the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) score (SMD, –0.60 [95% CI, –0.94 to –0.27]).
Conclusion:
The results demonstrated that compared with tenodesis, tenotomy had a higher risk of a Popeye deformity in all 3 study groups; worse functional outcomes in terms of the Constant score, forearm supination strength index, and SST score according to prospective cohort studies; and a higher incidence of arm cramping pain according to retrospective cohort studies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2325-9671</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2325-9671</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/2325967121993805</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33997057</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Arthroscopy ; Clinical outcomes ; Cohort analysis ; Meta-analysis ; Orthopedics ; Sports medicine ; Systematic review ; Tendons</subject><ispartof>Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, 2021-04, Vol.9 (4), p.2325967121993805-2325967121993805</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2021</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2021.</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2021. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution – Non-Commercial – No Derivatives License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2021 2021 SAGE Publications</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c462t-a0f10d4be32c1686a7cd1d56f31e0653d59c265807df125ca22032f01a6f0d3b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c462t-a0f10d4be32c1686a7cd1d56f31e0653d59c265807df125ca22032f01a6f0d3b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8071980/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8071980/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,313,314,727,780,784,792,864,885,21965,27852,27921,27923,27924,44944,45332,53790,53792</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33997057$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Liu, Hongzhi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Song, Xinqiu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Pei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu, Huachen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Qidong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guo, Wanshou</creatorcontrib><title>Clinical Outcomes of Arthroscopic Tenodesis Versus Tenotomy for Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials and Cohort Studies</title><title>Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine</title><addtitle>Orthop J Sports Med</addtitle><description>Background:
Controversy exists concerning whether tenotomy or tenodesis is the optimal surgical treatment option for proximal biceps tendon lesions.
Purpose:
To evaluate the clinical outcomes after arthroscopic tenodesis and tenotomy in the treatment of long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) lesions.
Study Design:
Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.
Methods:
A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that compared the clinical efficacy of tenotomy with that of tenodesis for LHBT lesions. A standardized data extraction form was predesigned to obtain bibliographic information of the study as well as patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome data. A random-effects model was used to pool quantitative data from the primary outcomes.
Results:
A total of 21 eligible studies were separated into 3 methodological groups: (1) 4 RCTs with level 1 evidence, (2) 3 RCTs and 4 prospective cohort studies with level 2 evidence, and (3) 10 retrospective cohort studies with level 3 to 4 evidence. Analysis of the 3 groups demonstrated a significantly higher risk of the Popeye sign after tenotomy versus tenodesis (group 1: risk ratio [RR], 3.29 [95% CI, 1.92-5.49]; group 2: RR, 2.35 [95% CI, 1.43-3.85]; and group 3: RR, 2.57 [95% CI, 1.33-4.98]). Arm cramping pain remained significantly higher after tenotomy only in the retrospective cohort group (RR, 2.17 [95% CI, 1.20-3.95]). The Constant score for tenotomy was significantly worse than that for tenodesis in the prospective cohort group (standardized mean difference [SMD], –0.47 [95% CI, –0.73 to –0.21]), as were the forearm supination strength index (SMD, –0.75 [95% CI, –1.28 to –0.21]) and the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) score (SMD, –0.60 [95% CI, –0.94 to –0.27]).
Conclusion:
The results demonstrated that compared with tenodesis, tenotomy had a higher risk of a Popeye deformity in all 3 study groups; worse functional outcomes in terms of the Constant score, forearm supination strength index, and SST score according to prospective cohort studies; and a higher incidence of arm cramping pain according to retrospective cohort studies.</description><subject>Arthroscopy</subject><subject>Clinical outcomes</subject><subject>Cohort analysis</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Sports medicine</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Tendons</subject><issn>2325-9671</issn><issn>2325-9671</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AFRWT</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kk1vEzEQhlcIRKvSOydkiQuXBX-svbsckEIEFCmoUhu4Wo49m7jatYPtLQo_jt-GNymhVMIXW-88887YnqJ4TvBrQur6DWWUt6ImlLQtazB_VJxOUjlpj--dT4rzGG9wXg0nLaufFieMtW2NeX1a_Jr31lmtenQ5Ju0HiMh3aBbSJvio_dZqtATnDUQb0TcIcYx7Iflhhzof0MK7NboAZaa8tAH03mrY7iHjHVrkRO_iWzRD17uYYFApW17BrYUfSDmDvkBSpXKq300VssdVVv1gf4JBx96Wwao-7vm53_iQ0HUajYX4rHjS5Qic3-1nxdePH5bzi3Jx-enzfLYodSVoKhXuCDbVChjVRDRC1doQw0XHCGDBmeGtpoI3uDYdoVwrSjGjHSZKdNiwFTsr3h18t-NqAKPBpaB6uQ12UGEnvbLy34izG7n2tzJbkrbB2eDVnUHw30eISQ42auh75cCPUVJOm4pR2rCMvnyA3vgx5BeaqKqqSNMIkil8oHT-qBigOzZDsJzmQz6cj5zy4v4ljgl_piED5QGIag1_q_7X8DcAtcU-</recordid><startdate>20210401</startdate><enddate>20210401</enddate><creator>Liu, Hongzhi</creator><creator>Song, Xinqiu</creator><creator>Liu, Pei</creator><creator>Yu, Huachen</creator><creator>Zhang, Qidong</creator><creator>Guo, Wanshou</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications Ltd</general><scope>AFRWT</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210401</creationdate><title>Clinical Outcomes of Arthroscopic Tenodesis Versus Tenotomy for Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials and Cohort Studies</title><author>Liu, Hongzhi ; Song, Xinqiu ; Liu, Pei ; Yu, Huachen ; Zhang, Qidong ; Guo, Wanshou</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c462t-a0f10d4be32c1686a7cd1d56f31e0653d59c265807df125ca22032f01a6f0d3b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Arthroscopy</topic><topic>Clinical outcomes</topic><topic>Cohort analysis</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Sports medicine</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Tendons</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Liu, Hongzhi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Song, Xinqiu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Pei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu, Huachen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Qidong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guo, Wanshou</creatorcontrib><collection>Sage Journals GOLD Open Access 2024</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Liu, Hongzhi</au><au>Song, Xinqiu</au><au>Liu, Pei</au><au>Yu, Huachen</au><au>Zhang, Qidong</au><au>Guo, Wanshou</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Clinical Outcomes of Arthroscopic Tenodesis Versus Tenotomy for Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials and Cohort Studies</atitle><jtitle>Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Orthop J Sports Med</addtitle><date>2021-04-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>2325967121993805</spage><epage>2325967121993805</epage><pages>2325967121993805-2325967121993805</pages><issn>2325-9671</issn><eissn>2325-9671</eissn><abstract>Background:
Controversy exists concerning whether tenotomy or tenodesis is the optimal surgical treatment option for proximal biceps tendon lesions.
Purpose:
To evaluate the clinical outcomes after arthroscopic tenodesis and tenotomy in the treatment of long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) lesions.
Study Design:
Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.
Methods:
A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that compared the clinical efficacy of tenotomy with that of tenodesis for LHBT lesions. A standardized data extraction form was predesigned to obtain bibliographic information of the study as well as patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome data. A random-effects model was used to pool quantitative data from the primary outcomes.
Results:
A total of 21 eligible studies were separated into 3 methodological groups: (1) 4 RCTs with level 1 evidence, (2) 3 RCTs and 4 prospective cohort studies with level 2 evidence, and (3) 10 retrospective cohort studies with level 3 to 4 evidence. Analysis of the 3 groups demonstrated a significantly higher risk of the Popeye sign after tenotomy versus tenodesis (group 1: risk ratio [RR], 3.29 [95% CI, 1.92-5.49]; group 2: RR, 2.35 [95% CI, 1.43-3.85]; and group 3: RR, 2.57 [95% CI, 1.33-4.98]). Arm cramping pain remained significantly higher after tenotomy only in the retrospective cohort group (RR, 2.17 [95% CI, 1.20-3.95]). The Constant score for tenotomy was significantly worse than that for tenodesis in the prospective cohort group (standardized mean difference [SMD], –0.47 [95% CI, –0.73 to –0.21]), as were the forearm supination strength index (SMD, –0.75 [95% CI, –1.28 to –0.21]) and the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) score (SMD, –0.60 [95% CI, –0.94 to –0.27]).
Conclusion:
The results demonstrated that compared with tenodesis, tenotomy had a higher risk of a Popeye deformity in all 3 study groups; worse functional outcomes in terms of the Constant score, forearm supination strength index, and SST score according to prospective cohort studies; and a higher incidence of arm cramping pain according to retrospective cohort studies.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>33997057</pmid><doi>10.1177/2325967121993805</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2325-9671 |
ispartof | Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, 2021-04, Vol.9 (4), p.2325967121993805-2325967121993805 |
issn | 2325-9671 2325-9671 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8071980 |
source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Sage Journals GOLD Open Access 2024; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central |
subjects | Arthroscopy Clinical outcomes Cohort analysis Meta-analysis Orthopedics Sports medicine Systematic review Tendons |
title | Clinical Outcomes of Arthroscopic Tenodesis Versus Tenotomy for Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials and Cohort Studies |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-11T17%3A29%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Clinical%20Outcomes%20of%20Arthroscopic%20Tenodesis%20Versus%20Tenotomy%20for%20Long%20Head%20of%20the%20Biceps%20Tendon%20Lesions:%20A%20Systematic%20Review%20and%20Meta-analysis%20of%20Randomized%20Clinical%20Trials%20and%20Cohort%20Studies&rft.jtitle=Orthopaedic%20Journal%20of%20Sports%20Medicine&rft.au=Liu,%20Hongzhi&rft.date=2021-04-01&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=2325967121993805&rft.epage=2325967121993805&rft.pages=2325967121993805-2325967121993805&rft.issn=2325-9671&rft.eissn=2325-9671&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/2325967121993805&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2528432283%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2544418861&rft_id=info:pmid/33997057&rft_sage_id=10.1177_2325967121993805&rfr_iscdi=true |