Editorial Commentary: Open Versus Arthroscopic Biceps Tenodesis - You Choose

Joshua D. Harris

doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2015.12.017

Editorial Commentary: Open Versus Arthroscopic Biceps Tenodesis - You Choose

Joshua D. Harris

Research output: Contribution to journal › Editorial › peer-review

2 Scopus citations

Abstract

In a Level IV evidence systematic review of 16 studies comparing arthroscopic and open biceps tenodesis, both techniques showed good or excellent short-term subjective and objective clinical outcomes in 98% of subjects. Ultimately, technique selection may be based on surgeon preference. In open tenodesis, one should avoid vigorous medial retraction to mitigate the risk of nerve injury.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	372-373
Number of pages	2
Journal	Arthroscopy - Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery
Volume	32
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2015.12.017
State	Published - Feb 1 2016

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Access to Document

10.1016/j.arthro.2015.12.017

Cite this

@article{a32380e91ff94ea886631dc2c071ae5e,

title = "Editorial Commentary: Open Versus Arthroscopic Biceps Tenodesis - You Choose",

abstract = "In a Level IV evidence systematic review of 16 studies comparing arthroscopic and open biceps tenodesis, both techniques showed good or excellent short-term subjective and objective clinical outcomes in 98% of subjects. Ultimately, technique selection may be based on surgeon preference. In open tenodesis, one should avoid vigorous medial retraction to mitigate the risk of nerve injury.",

author = "Harris, {Joshua D.}",

year = "2016",

month = feb,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.arthro.2015.12.017",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "32",

pages = "372--373",

journal = "Arthroscopy",

issn = "0749-8063",

publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Editorial Commentary

T2 - Open Versus Arthroscopic Biceps Tenodesis - You Choose

AU - Harris, Joshua D.

PY - 2016/2/1

Y1 - 2016/2/1

N2 - In a Level IV evidence systematic review of 16 studies comparing arthroscopic and open biceps tenodesis, both techniques showed good or excellent short-term subjective and objective clinical outcomes in 98% of subjects. Ultimately, technique selection may be based on surgeon preference. In open tenodesis, one should avoid vigorous medial retraction to mitigate the risk of nerve injury.

AB - In a Level IV evidence systematic review of 16 studies comparing arthroscopic and open biceps tenodesis, both techniques showed good or excellent short-term subjective and objective clinical outcomes in 98% of subjects. Ultimately, technique selection may be based on surgeon preference. In open tenodesis, one should avoid vigorous medial retraction to mitigate the risk of nerve injury.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84957824929&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84957824929&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.arthro.2015.12.017

DO - 10.1016/j.arthro.2015.12.017

M3 - Editorial

C2 - 26814399

AN - SCOPUS:84957824929

VL - 32

SP - 372

EP - 373

JO - Arthroscopy

JF - Arthroscopy

SN - 0749-8063

IS - 2

ER -

Editorial Commentary: Open Versus Arthroscopic Biceps Tenodesis - You Choose

Abstract

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this