ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2021
Outcomes After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair Using Margin Convergence Versus Superior Capsular Reconstruction: Should Candidates for Margin Convergence Be Treated With Superior Capsular Reconstruction?
Article 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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Scapular endurance, dyskinesis, and functional outcomes after rotator cuff repair: A cross-sectional mediation analysis.PloS one · 2026Article
- Margin Convergence Yields Comparable Clinical Outcomes With Repair Using the Interval Slide Technique in Patients Who Had Undergone Complete Repair of Large-to-Massive Rotator Cuff Tears.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes of Augmented Partial Repair with Acellular Dermal Allograft and Superior Capsular Reconstruction in Massive Rotator Cuff Tears: 2-Year Follow-Up.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Double Attack Repair for Massive Rotator Cuff Tears: Superior Capsular Reconstruction Using the Long Head of Biceps Tendon Plus Margin Convergence Repair.Arthroscopy techniques · 2023Article
- Superior Capsular Reconstruction Versus Latissimus Dorsi Tendon Transfer for Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tears: Minimum 5-year Outcomes.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2023Article
- Rotator cuff tear reaching the superior half portion of the humeral head causes shoulder abduction malfunction.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023Article
- The Number of Surgeons Using Superior Capsular Reconstruction for Rotator Cuff Repair Is Declining.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBoth margin convergence rotator cuff repair (MC-RCR) and superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) result in improved clinical outcomes in the treatment of massive rotator cuff tears (RCTs). The question remains whether it is better to perform MC-RCR using native, albeit occasionally deficient, tissues or to perform primary SCR. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: To compare the clinical results of MC-RCR versus SCR for the treatment of massive RCTs. It was hypothesized that SCR would yield better outcomes. STUDY
designCohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
methodsIncluded were patients who underwent arthroscopic MC-RCR or SCR for massive RCTs performed by a single surgeon between 2014 and 2019. MC-RCR was performed if it was technically possible to close the defect; otherwise, SCR was performed. Outcomes were assessed at 6 months and then annually using American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons; Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation; shortened version of Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand; 12-Item Short Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary; and patient satisfaction scores. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) were compared between groups. Revision surgeries and complications were reported.
resultsIncluded were 46 patients in the MC-RCR group (mean age, 59 ± 8 years) and 46 patients in the SCR group (mean age, 57 ± 7 years); 29 patients in each group were available at 2-year follow-up. Preoperative outcome scores were not significantly different between groups. Within groups, all outcome scores improved from pre- to postoperatively (
conclusionBoth MC-RCR and SCR provided similar improvement in outcomes; however, SCR resulted in a significantly lower survivorship rate at 2 years postoperatively. If an RCT is technically repairable, we recommend that it be repaired primarily, even if MC techniques are needed to close the defect. SCR remains a good option for massive RCTs that are not technically repairable.
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.