Table 1 Characteristics of studies included
Year | Sample size (R/BT) | Female (%) | Mean age (years) | Intervention | Country | Study design | Follow-up (month) | Relevant outcome | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
R | BT | |||||||||
Schrøder et al. [12] | 2017 | 40/39 | R 37.5% | R 40 (22–57) | Labral repair | Biceps tenodesis | Norway | RCT | 24 | Rowe; WOSI; OISS; EQ-5D; satisfaction rate; EQ-VAS |
BT 38.5% | BT 40 (18–64) | |||||||||
Chen et al. [13] | 2016 | 11/11 | R 27.3% | R 40.36 ± 3.98 | Labral repair | Biceps tenotomy and tenodesis | China | Retrospective study | 12 | UCLA; ASES |
BT 36.4% | BT 41.91 ± 3.11 | |||||||||
Zhao et al. [14] | 2015 | 22/16 | R 36.4% | R 49 ± 2.8 | SLAP repair | Biceps tenodesis | China | Retrospective case-control study | 24 | UCLA; SST |
BT 43.8% | BT 49.3 ± 3.7 | |||||||||
Denard et al. [15] | 2014 | 22/15 | R 27.3% | R 45.2 ± 5.5 | Biceps repair | Biceps tenodesis | USA | Retrospective study | R 63.2 ± 14.5 | Satisfaction rate; complications |
BT 13.3% | BT 52.0 ± 8.0 | BT 41.1 ± 19.8 | ||||||||
Ek et al. [16] | 2014 | 10/15 | R 0% | R 31(21–43) | SLAP repair | Biceps tenodesis | Australia | Retrospective study | R 35 (25–52) | SSV; VAS; ASES; satisfaction rate; complications |
BT 6.7% | BT 47(30–59) | BT 31 (26–43) | ||||||||
Kim et al. [17] | 2012 | 16/20 | R 56.3% | R 61.1 ± 5.1 | SLAP repair | Biceps tenotomy | Korea | Retrospective study | 24 | SST; ASES; UCLA |
BT 55% | BT 63.3 ± 6.0 | |||||||||
Boileau et al. [18] | 2009 | 10/15 | R 0% | R 37(19–57) | SLAP repair | Biceps tenodesis | France | Retrospective study | R 35 (24–69) | Satisfaction rate; complications; reoperation |
BT 40% | BT 52(28–64) | BT 34 (24–68) | ||||||||
Franceschi et al. [19] | 2008 | 31/32 | R 41.9% | R 61.8 (51–79) | SLAP repair | Biceps tenotomy | Italy | RCT | 34.8 | UCLA; ROM; operation time; complications |
BT 53.1% | BT 64.7 (53–81) | |||||||||