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....

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine 2021-04, Vol.9 (4), p.2325967121993805-2325967121993805
Hauptverfasser: Liu, Hongzhi, Song, Xinqiu, Liu, Pei, Yu, Huachen, Zhang, Qidong, Guo, Wanshou
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 &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; 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 &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; 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