|
rdf:type |
|
|
lifeskim:mentions |
|
|
pubmed:issue |
4
|
|
pubmed:dateCreated |
2007-7-20
|
|
pubmed:abstractText |
The aim of this study was to determine whether or not detaching the biceps tendon from the glenoid after tenodesis performed with the inclusion of the biceps in the rotator cuff suture results in an improved outcome. From 1999 to 2001, 22 patients had an arthroscopic rotator cuff repair and associated biceps tendon lesions that were repaired with two new arthroscopic techniques of tenodesis incorporating the biceps tendon in the rotator cuff suture. Patients were randomised into one of two groups: tenodesis without tenotomy (group 1) and tenodesis with tenotomy (group 2). Preoperative and postoperative functions were assessed by means of a modified UCLA rating scale and shoulder ROM. The mean follow-up period was 47.2 months (range 36- 59). In group 1 (tenodesis without tenotomy), eight patients had an excellent postoperative score and three a good postoperative score. The UCLA rating system used for evaluation showed a statistically significant improvement from the preoperative average rating of 10.5 (5-15) to the postoperative average score of 33 (29-35) (P<0.05). In group 2 (tenodesis with tenotomy), the UCLA rating system used for evaluation showed a statistically significant improvement from the preoperative rating of 11.1 to the postoperative score of 32.9 (P<0.05). No statistically significant difference in the total UCLA scores was found when comparing the repairs performed with or without tenotomy. Follow-up results with regard to ROM were not different between the two groups, and the range of motion was improved in all measured directions. In this series, every patient qualified as having good to excellent results according to the UCLA score. This study suggests that there is no difference between detaching and not detaching the biceps after including it in the repair.
|
|
pubmed:commentsCorrections |
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/16947053-10882454,
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/16947053-11075320,
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/16947053-11408906,
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/16947053-11447552,
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/16947053-11987057,
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/16947053-12426544,
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/16947053-12426550,
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/16947053-14716285,
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/16947053-14760357,
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/16947053-15243459,
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/16947053-15346121,
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/16947053-15689867,
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/16947053-15789006,
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/16947053-16012508,
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/16947053-16084298,
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/16947053-2743659,
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/16947053-4812158,
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/16947053-5455089,
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/16947053-7001314,
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/16947053-7890785
|
|
pubmed:language |
eng
|
|
pubmed:journal |
|
|
pubmed:citationSubset |
IM
|
|
pubmed:status |
MEDLINE
|
|
pubmed:month |
Aug
|
|
pubmed:issn |
0341-2695
|
|
pubmed:author |
|
|
pubmed:issnType |
Print
|
|
pubmed:volume |
31
|
|
pubmed:owner |
NLM
|
|
pubmed:authorsComplete |
Y
|
|
pubmed:pagination |
537-45
|
|
pubmed:dateRevised |
2009-11-18
|
|
pubmed:meshHeading |
pubmed-meshheading:16947053-Adult,
pubmed-meshheading:16947053-Aged,
pubmed-meshheading:16947053-Arthroscopy,
pubmed-meshheading:16947053-Disability Evaluation,
pubmed-meshheading:16947053-Female,
pubmed-meshheading:16947053-Follow-Up Studies,
pubmed-meshheading:16947053-Humans,
pubmed-meshheading:16947053-Humerus,
pubmed-meshheading:16947053-Male,
pubmed-meshheading:16947053-Middle Aged,
pubmed-meshheading:16947053-Range of Motion, Articular,
pubmed-meshheading:16947053-Rotator Cuff,
pubmed-meshheading:16947053-Shoulder Joint,
pubmed-meshheading:16947053-Shoulder Pain,
pubmed-meshheading:16947053-Tendons,
pubmed-meshheading:16947053-Tenodesis,
pubmed-meshheading:16947053-Time Factors,
pubmed-meshheading:16947053-Treatment Outcome
|
|
pubmed:year |
2007
|
|
pubmed:articleTitle |
To detach the long head of the biceps tendon after tenodesis or not: outcome analysis at the 4-year follow-up of two different techniques.
|
|
pubmed:affiliation |
Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Campus Biomedico University, Via Longoni, 83, 00155 Rome, Italy.
|
|
pubmed:publicationType |
Journal Article,
Comparative Study,
Randomized Controlled Trial
|
