Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBusconi, Brian D.
dc.contributor.authorDeangelis, Nicola
dc.contributor.authorGuerrero, Patrick
dc.date2022-08-11T08:10:08.000
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-23T16:56:54Z
dc.date.available2022-08-23T16:56:54Z
dc.date.issued2008-08-16
dc.date.submitted2011-05-26
dc.identifier.citationSports Med Arthrosc. 2008 Sep;16(3):187-94. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/JSA.0b013e318183c134">Link to article on publisher's site</a>
dc.identifier.issn1062-8592 (Linking)
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/JSA.0b013e318183c134
dc.identifier.pmid18703980
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/43028
dc.description.abstractThe diagnosis and treatment of proximal biceps tendon injuries continue to be a challenge. The difficulty lies on determining if there is isolated biceps pathology versus concomitant rotator cuff tears or instability. Imaging modalities, such as magnetic resonance imaging, continue to provide us with the extra tool to help us confirm our suspicion of additional pathology. Symptomatic biceps tendon tears can undergo debridement, tenotomy, or tenodesis if nonoperative measures fail to provide relief. Reports from performing a biceps tenotomy often give similar functional outcomes compared with tenodesis. Cosmetic deformity on the lateral arm may be noted with tenodesis and initial fatigue. Tenodesis may subject the patient to a longer rehabilitation process and increased pain. The decision of which one should be performed lies between the physician and the patient's expectations.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.relation<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=18703980&dopt=Abstract">Link to Article in PubMed</a>
dc.relation.urlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1097/JSA.0b013e318183c134
dc.subjectArthroscopy
dc.subjectChronic Disease
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectFollow-Up Studies
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectInjury Severity Score
dc.subjectJoint Instability
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectMuscle, Skeletal
dc.subjectOrthopedic Procedures
dc.subjectPain Measurement
dc.subjectRange of Motion, Articular
dc.subjectRisk Assessment
dc.subjectRotator Cuff
dc.subjectRupture
dc.subjectSensitivity and Specificity
dc.subjectShoulder Impingement Syndrome
dc.subjectShoulder Pain
dc.subjectTendon Injuries
dc.subjectTendon Transfer
dc.subjectTenodesis
dc.subjectTreatment Outcome
dc.subjectOrthopedics
dc.subjectRehabilitation and Therapy
dc.titleThe proximal biceps tendon: tricks and pearls
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.source.journaltitleSports medicine and arthroscopy review
dc.source.volume16
dc.source.issue3
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/ortho_pp/37
dc.identifier.contextkey2032276
html.description.abstract<p>The diagnosis and treatment of proximal biceps tendon injuries continue to be a challenge. The difficulty lies on determining if there is isolated biceps pathology versus concomitant rotator cuff tears or instability. Imaging modalities, such as magnetic resonance imaging, continue to provide us with the extra tool to help us confirm our suspicion of additional pathology. Symptomatic biceps tendon tears can undergo debridement, tenotomy, or tenodesis if nonoperative measures fail to provide relief. Reports from performing a biceps tenotomy often give similar functional outcomes compared with tenodesis. Cosmetic deformity on the lateral arm may be noted with tenodesis and initial fatigue. Tenodesis may subject the patient to a longer rehabilitation process and increased pain. The decision of which one should be performed lies between the physician and the patient's expectations.</p>
dc.identifier.submissionpathortho_pp/37
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Orthopedics and Physical Rehabilitation
dc.source.pages187-94


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record