SynthesisMusculoskeletal surgery2020
Arthroscopic anatomic complete versus non-anatomic repair of massive rotator cuff tears: a systematic review of comparative trials.
Synthesis in Musculoskeletal surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The role of injections of mesenchymal stem cells as an augmentation tool in rotator cuff repair: a systematic review.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several clinical studies have compared the clinical and functional outcomes of arthroscopic anatomic complete repair and arthroscopic partial repair for massive rotator cuff tears (MRCTs). To our knowledge, no systematic review of these comparative trials has been published yet. A systematic analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) using the MEDLINE/PubMed database and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Six studies were eligible for analysis, and they were level III case-control studies. There were 223 cases of complete repair and 208 cases of partial repair (mean age range 59-67 years, mean follow-up range 24-45 months). All studies reported significant postoperative improvement in the reported subjective scores and range of motion in both groups. Complete repair was associated with at least equal or better functional outcomes compared to the partial repair. The rate of complications requiring reoperation in the complete and partial repair cohorts was 1.3% and 3.4%, respectively. Although the overall rate of radiographic integrity of the complete and partial repair cohorts was 61.1% and 26.7%, respectively, we found no clinical relevance in this finding. There is moderate-to-good quality evidence to support that both arthroscopic complete and partial repairs of MRCTs are associated with satisfactory functional outcomes and low rate of complications requiring reoperation. Complete repair is associated with at least equal or better functional outcomes compared to the partial repair and, therefore, it should remain the first line of treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32358709What 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.