ArticleJournal of shoulder and elbow surgery2020
Factors influencing operative time in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a comparison of knotless single-row vs. transosseous equivalent dual-row techniques.
Article in Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Determinants of Operative Time in Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite the widespread use of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (aRCR), there remains considerable debate on the benefits of a dual-row vs. a single-row (SR) repair technique. This study compares operative time of a knotless SR technique with transosseous equivalent (TOE) dual-row technique for aRCR and defines patient-specific factors that affect operative time.
methodsData from 118 patients who underwent aRCR with a knotless SR technique was compared with data from 95 patients who underwent aRCR with a TOE technique by a single surgeon between 2014 and 2018. Baseline patient demographic information and operative time were recorded and compared between the 2 groups. Subgroup analysis was performed to determine if demographic information or tear size influenced operative time.
resultsThe average operative time in the SR group was 75.68 minutes and the average operative time in the TOE group was 89.24 minutes (P < .001). When controlling for all concomitant procedures, the operative time in the TOE group was 8.1 minutes longer than the SR group (P = .029). Average tear size in an anterior-posterior direction was larger in the TOE group vs. the SR group, 26.09 mm vs. 15.18 mm (P < .001).
conclusionWhen controlling for concomitant procedures, a knotless, TOE dual-row technique for aRCR adds an average of 8 minutes' operative time compared with a knotless SR technique. This was despite a significantly larger tear size in the TOE group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.