ArticleArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2021
Significant Improvement in Shoulder Function and Pain in Patients Following Biologic Augmentation of Revision Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair Using an Autologous Fibrin Scaffold and Bone Marrow Aspirate Derived From the Proximal Humerus.
Article in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2021. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical Options for Massive Rotator Cuff Tears with Preserved Full Range of Motion in Middle-Aged Patients.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2026Review
- Rationale and methodology for injection therapy to treat rotator cuff disease: a scoping review.Clinics in shoulder and elbow · 2025Article
- Rotator cuff repair augmentation: a review of current techniques.Annals of joint · 2025Review
- Combined Biologic Augmentation Strategies with Collagen Patch Graft, Microfractures, and Platelet Concentrate Injections Improve Functional and Structural Outcomes of Arthroscopic Revision 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
10 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo clinically evaluate patients who underwent a biologic augmentation technique in revision arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using an autologous fibrin scaffold and concentrated stem cells isolated from bone marrow aspirate (BMA) obtained from the proximal humerus.
methodsThis is a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from patients who underwent biologic augmentation of revision arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using an autologous fibrin scaffold and BMA obtained from the proximal humerus between 2014 and 2015. Minimum follow-up was 12 months. Outcome measures were collected preoperatively and postoperatively including range of motion as well as American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Form, Simple Shoulder Test, single assessment numeric evaluation, and visual analog score. In addition, BMA samples of each patient were assessed for the number of nucleated cells and colony-forming units. Regression analysis was performed to investigate whether the number of nucleated cells and colony-forming units had an influence on outcome and failure.
resultsTen patients who underwent biologic augmentation of revision arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using an autologous fibrin scaffold and concentrated BMA obtained from the proximal humerus between 2014 and 2015 were included. The mean follow-up time was 30.7 (range: 12-49) months. Four patients were revised at final follow-up. Postoperative clinical scores improved significantly: American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (28.1 ± 5.4 to 60.9 ± 9.0;
conclusionsPatients who underwent biologic augmentation of revision arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using an autologous fibrin scaffold and concentrated BMA demonstrated a significant improvement in shoulder function along with reduction of pain. However, the overall revision rate for this procedure was 40%. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.
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.