Research Appraisals
Evidence-based critical appraisals of the latest medical research, systematically evaluated using Oxford CEBM methodology.
Showing 2 appraisals
Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery
Comparative analysis of the improvement in shoulder rotation in complex shoulder fractures treated by reverse shoulder arthroplasty compared to open reduction and internal fixation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical and functional outcomes of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in patients aged ≥ 65 years with complex proximal humeral fractures (PHFs). METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, EBSCO, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies published in English without date restrictions. Eligible studies compared RSA and ORIF in elderly patients with PHFs and reported functional, radiographic, or complication outcomes. Pooled data were analyzed using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies involving > 34,000 patients were included. RSA was associated with greater forward flexion and a trend toward improved abduction, whereas internal rotation favored ORIF without reaching significance. No significant differences were observed in external rotation. The functional scores (Constant-Murley, Oxford Shoulder Score) were similar, and the complication and reoperation rates did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSION: RSA offers modest advantages in forward flexion compared with ORIF but does not consistently improve overall functional scores or reduce complications. RSA may be preferred in elderly patients with poor bone stock or rotator cuff pathology, whereas ORIF remains appropriate for patients in whom joint preservation is feasible. High-quality RCTs with standardized outcome reporting are needed to clarify the optimal surgical management.
28 May 2026
Read appraisal →Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery
Loop versus anchor tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon: a prospective randomized controlled pilot study
BACKGROUND: The long head of the biceps tendon is a frequent source of anterior shoulder pain, often treated with tenodesis. While anchor tenodesis is well established, it carries risks of implant-related complications. This study evaluates an implant-free "loop tenodesis" technique as a potentially safer and cost-effective alternative. METHODS: In this prospective, double-blinded, randomized exploratory study, 48 patients undergoing arthroscopic biceps tenodesis were randomized to either loop (n = 24) or anchor (n = 24) tenodesis. Clinical outcomes were assessed using ASES, Constant, and DASH scores, as well as range of motion, supination strength, satisfaction, aesthetic appearance, and return-to-sport. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests to compare non-parametric data. RESULTS: Both groups showed significant improvements with similar gains in functional scores. Supination strength recovery was greater in the loop group (103% vs. 93%). There were no significant differences in range of motion or complications. Notably, only the anchor group showed cases of Popeye deformity (2 patients). Return to sport was achieved in 95.3% of patients, typically within 3 months. No revision or implant-related issues occurred. CONCLUSION: Loop tenodesis offers equivalent clinical outcomes to anchor-based techniques, with fewer aesthetic concerns and no implant-associated risks, making it a safe, reliable, and cost-effective alternative for biceps tenodesis.
25 May 2026
Read appraisal →