In Schuenemann 2025 et al., on biceps tenodesis, what was a key CT finding during follow-up?
A. Hole enlargement around anchor
B. Periosteal reaction at fixation site
C. Drill hole filled with new bone
D. Anchor migration to joint space
E. Cyst formation near implant
Answer: Drill hole filled with new bone
Explanation: CT follow-up showed progressive bone fill at the anchor site with no signs of lysis or failure.
In Schuenemann 2025 et al., on biceps tenodesis, what was the anchor type used in all cases?
A. Metallic screw anchor
B. Bone tunnel suture anchor
C. Titanium suture button
D. Bioabsorbable BoneWelding anchor
E. Nonabsorbable toggle pin
Answer: Bioabsorbable BoneWelding anchor
Explanation: A 2.3 mm bioabsorbable Weldix anchor using BoneWelding technology was used in all tenodesis cases.
In Schuenemann 2025 et al., on biceps tenodesis, which complication occurred with the use of the tendon clamp?
A. Implant loosening
B. Recurrent luxation
C. Seroma and abscess
D. Tendon re-tear
E. Screw migration
Answer: Seroma and abscess
Explanation: The one case using a tendon clamp developed seroma and later abscess, resolving after treatment.
In Schuenemann 2025 et al., on biceps tenodesis, what was the functional outcome in all dogs?
A. Returned to partial weight bearing
B. Required revision surgery
C. Lameness resolved within 6–12 weeks
D. Returned to full function
E. Limited ROM persisted
Answer: Returned to full function
Explanation: All dogs returned to full function, including high-performance sports in some cases.
In Schuenemann 2025 et al., on biceps tenodesis, what LOAD score pattern was observed in the cohort?
A. High scores in all cases
B. Median score < 5 in young dogs
C. Median score 25 across all cases
D. Median score 12, higher in older dogs
E. Consistent score of 10 across cases
Answer: Median score 12, higher in older dogs
Explanation: Median LOAD score was 12; older dogs and those with comorbidities had higher scores.