ArticleUltrasonography (Seoul, Korea)2022
Predicting the surgical reparability of large-to-massive rotator cuff tears by B-mode ultrasonography: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical application of musculoskeletal for supraspinatus tendon tears with fat infiltration.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Clinical application of ultrasound-guided platelet-rich plasma gel in the treatment of supraspinatus tendon tears: a single-center retrospective study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Definition of irreparable rotator cuff tear: a scoping review of prospective surgical therapeutic trials to evaluate current practice.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Emerging Role of Quantitative Ultrasound-Based Imaging Techniques for Characterizing Rotator Cuff Tears: A Scoping Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to compare the ability of B-mode ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to predict the repairability of large-to-massive rotator cuff tears (RCTs).
methodsThis cross-sectional study included participants with large-to-massive RCTs who underwent arthroscopic repair. B-mode ultrasonography and MRI were conducted prior to arthroscopic repair. B-mode ultrasonography was used to evaluate the echogenicity of the rotator cuff muscle using the Heckmatt scale. Intra-rater and inter-rater reliabilities were examined for two independent physicians. MRI was used to evaluate the degrees of tendon retraction, fatty infiltration of rotator cuff muscles, and muscle atrophy. Finally, two experienced orthopedic surgeons performed surgery and decided whether the torn stump could be completely repaired intraoperatively.
resultsFifty participants were included, and 32 complete repairs and 18 partial repairs were performed. B-mode ultrasonography showed good intra-rater reliability and inter-rater reliability for assessment of the muscle echogenicity of the supraspinatus and infraspinatus muscles. The correlation coefficients between B-mode ultrasound findings and MRI findings showed medium to large effect sizes (r=0.4-0.8). The Goutallier classification of the infraspinatus muscles was the MRI predictor with the best discriminative power for surgical reparability (area under the curve [AUC], 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 0.98), while the Heckmatt scale for infraspinatus muscles was the most accurate ultrasound predictor (AUC, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.96). No significant differences in AUCs among the MRI and ultrasound predictors were found.
conclusionB-mode ultrasonography was a reliable examination tool and had a similar ability to predict surgical reparability to that of MRI among patients with large-to-massive RCTs.
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.