Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Biceps tenodesis and tenotomy are increasingly being used as treatment options for shoulder pathology, but patient satisfaction remains largely unstudied. A systematic review of the MEDLINE database was conducted to identify clinical outcome studies on isolated biceps tenodesis or tenotomy that reported patient satisfaction. Within the 15 investigations that were included, the indication for tenotomy was rotator cuff pathology, whereas the indication for tenodesis was biceps pathology or type 2 superior labral tear from anterior to posterior. Patients undergoing tenotomy were 13.6 years older than those undergoing tenodesis (<.001). Patient satisfaction was high following both procedures, at 85.6% following tenotomy and 92.3% following tenodesis. [. 2021;44(6):333-340.].
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20211001-04 | DOI Listing |