You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 51, Issue 24
  • Sham surgery versus labral repair or biceps tenodesis for type II SLAP lesions of the shoulder: a three-armed randomised clinical trial

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Correspondence
Sham surgery versus labral repair or biceps tenodesis for type II SLAP lesions of the shoulder: a three-armed randomised clinical trial
  1. Chih-Kai Hong1,
  2. Wei-Ren Su1,2
  1. 1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
  2. 2 Medical Device Innovation Center, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
  1. Correspondence to Dr Wei-Ren Su, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, No.138, Sheng-Li Road, Tainan City, Taiwan 70428; suwr{at}ms28.hinet.net

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2017-098081

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    We read with interest the article by Schrøder et al 1 on the clinical outcome among labral repair, biceps tenodesis and sham surgery for isolated type II superior labrum anterior posterior (SLAP) lesions in a double-blind randomised clinical trial.2 Patients 18–60 years of age who had shoulder pain for more than 3 months and were unresponsive to the conservative managements were candidates for this trial. Once isolated type II SLAP lesion was confirmed from the arthroscopic examination, each patient was randomly  assigned to either labral repair, biceps tenodesis or sham surgery. The authors concluded that neither labral repair nor biceps tenodesis had any superior benefit over sham surgery.

    We appreciated the authors’ great efforts on this randomised control study. However, we have several comments and concerns regarding the study design …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors CKH prepared the manuscript and WRS contributed to the concept.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles