| Title |
Chronic rupture of the long head of the biceps tendon: comparison of 2-year results following primary versus revision open subpectoral biceps tenodesis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00402-015-2393-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Simon A. Euler, Marilee P. Horan, Michael B. Ellman, Joshua A. Greenspoon, Peter J. Millett |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical results of surgical repair for proximal long head of the biceps (LHB) tendon ruptures comparing chronic primary and postsurgical revision LHB tendon ruptures. Patients who underwent subpectoral LHB tenodesis for chronic ruptures with a minimum of 2 years from surgery were identified. ASES and SF-12 PCS scores and surgical and demographic data were collected prospectively. At final follow-up, patients were interviewed regarding symptoms related to their biceps. Symptoms were converted into a Subjective Proximal Biceps Score (SPBS). Twenty-seven patients (22 males, 5 females) with a mean age of 61 years (range 40-76 years) underwent LHB tenodeses. Twenty patients (74.1 %) were primary repairs for chronic ruptures and seven patients (25.9 %) were revision repairs after failed prior LHB tenodesis. Twenty-five patients (92.6 %; n = 18 primary; n = 7 revision) were available for follow-up a mean of 3.8 years (range 2-6.1). The overall median postoperative SPBS showed significant improvement over the preoperative baseline (p < 0.001). Individual components of the SPBS showed substantial improvements. The SPBS significantly correlated with the postoperative ASES score (r = -0.478; p = 0.038). There were no differences in postoperative SPBSs between the primary and revision tenodesis groups. The mean postoperative ASES score was 90.3 and SF-12 PCS was 52.6. Open subpectoral LHB tenodesis was a safe and effective method for the treatment of chronic LHB tendon ruptures and for the revision of failed post-surgical LHB ruptures. Patients had less pain, cramping, and deformity after LHB tenodesis. The SPBS, ASES, and SF-12 PCS scores significantly improved among this group of patients. Level III; Retrospective comparative study. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 19% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Unknown | 9 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 6% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 13 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 212. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 November 2017.
All research outputs
#164,001
of 23,815,455 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery
#3
of 1,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,984
of 400,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery
#1
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,815,455 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,215 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 400,576 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.