TY - JOUR
T1 - Editorial Commentary
T2 - Open Versus Arthroscopic Biceps Tenodesis - You Choose
AU - Harris, Joshua D.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Arthroscopy Association of North America.
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
SN - 0749-8063
VL - 32
SP - 372
EP - 373
JO - Arthroscopy - Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery
JF - Arthroscopy - Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery
IS - 2
ER -