ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Efficacy of Arthroscopic Shavers for the Retrieval and Processing of Connective Tissue Progenitor Cells from Subacromial Bursal Tissue.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The purpose of this study is to determine if arthroscopic shavers can effectively collect and process connective tissue progenitor (CTP) cells from subacromial bursal tissue for utilization in rotator cuff repair augmentation. Subacromial bursal tissue was collected and processed using two arthroscopic shavers, Shaver A and Shaver B, in 10 patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Each shaver was used in a random order for the same patient. Tissue samples underwent testing for cellular proliferation, cellular concentration, number of colony-forming units (CFU), live/dead assay, fluorescence-activated cells sorting (FACS) analysis, cytokine analysis, and growth factor analysis. Shaver A produced more CFUs compared to Shaver B (210.3 vs. 125.9; p < 0.001). At 3 weeks, cells collected via Shaver A had greater cellular proliferation (0.35 vs. 0.51; p < 0.001) as well as more viable cells (214,773 vs. 132,356 cells/gram; p < 0.001). Tissue collected with Shaver B had greater amounts of the cytokines MMP-1 (3741 vs. 5500 pg/mL; p < 0.001), MMP-3 (1131 vs. 1871 pg/mL; p < 0.001), and MMP-13 (179 vs. 401 pg/mL; p < 0.001), while those collected with Shaver A had greater vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) (47.8 vs. 9.0 pg/mL; p < 0.05). Arthroscopic shavers are capable of harvesting and processing CTP cells from subacromial bursal tissue. Different shavers may produce different yields of viable CTP cells.
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.