ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2021
Clinical Outcomes of Interposition Graft Versus Superior Capsular Reconstruction in Patients With Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tears: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current concepts in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.Clinics in shoulder and elbow · 2025Article
- Interposition Grafting Using Fascia Lata Autograft for Failed Rotator Cuff Repairs.Arthroscopy techniques · 2024Article
- Treatment of irreparable rotator cuff tear with dual graft reconstruction: a case report and technique description.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2023Article
- Massive and Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tears: A Review of Current Definitions and Concepts.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2023Review
- The Number of Surgeons Using Superior Capsular Reconstruction for Rotator Cuff Repair Is Declining.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2022Article
- Biomechanical outcomes of superior capsular reconstruction for irreparable rotator cuff tears by different graft materials-a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInterposition grafting (IG), also called bridging grafting, and superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) are the most commonly used joint-preserving surgical methods for irreparable rotator cuff tears (RCTs). PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of IG versus SCR to treat patients with irreparable RCTs. STUDY
designSystematic review; Level of evidence, 4.
methodsA literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus. Included in this review were clinical studies evaluating the effect of IG or SCR in patients with irreparable RCTs with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Various clinical results from the studies were extracted and compared between IG and SCR, and among them, the results of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, graft retear rate, and complication rate were included in the meta-analysis.
resultsOf 1638 identified articles, 17 (10 studies of IG involving 321 patients and 7 studies of SCR involving 357 patients) were selected. Both surgical methods showed significantly improved clinical outcomes in all but 1 study; however, the IG group had lower pain visual analog scale score, higher Constant score, and bigger active forward flexion and internal rotation compared with the SCR group (all
conclusionBoth IG and SCR techniques resulted in improvement in patients with irreparable RCTs. Meta-analysis showed a lower complication rate in the IG group; however, the lack of randomized studies limited our conclusions.
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.