Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35685982›Full record

Trial reportClinics in orthopedic surgery2022

Clinical and Anatomical Outcomes of Arthroscopic Repair of Large Rotator Cuff Tears with Allograft Patch Augmentation: A Prospective, Single-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial with a Long-term Follow-up.

Geun Woo Lee, Jung Youn Kim, Ho Won Lee, Joon Hyeok Yoon, Kyu-Cheol Noh

Open access · diamondAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinics in orthopedic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
8.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. [Interpretation of the 2025 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) on Management of Rotator Cuff Injuries Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Geun Woo LeeDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3263-1291
Jung Youn KimDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9194-6525
Ho Won LeeDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7924-6729
Joon Hyeok YoonDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5289-6150
Kyu-Cheol NohDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8738-2977
Hallym University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using human dermal matrix allograft augmentation has been widely used. We assessed the effect of acellular human dermal matrix augmentation after arthroscopic repair of large rotator cuff tears through a prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial with a long-term follow-up. Methods: Sixty patients with large-sized rotator cuff tears were randomly assigned to two groups. Patients in the control group underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Allograft patch augmentation was additionally performed in the allograft group. All patients were subdivided into a complete coverage (CC) group or an incomplete coverage (IC) group according to footprint coverage after cuff repair. Constant and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores were assessed preoperatively and at final follow-up. Magnetic resonance imaging was also performed at the same time to evaluate the anatomical results. Results: Forty-three patients were followed up for an average of 5.7 years. Clinical scores (Constant and ASES) increased significantly at the last follow-up in both groups. The increase in ASES score in the allograft group was statistically significantly greater than that in the control group. The degree of Constant score improvement did not differ significantly between the two groups. The retear rate was 9.1% in the allograft group, which was significantly lower than that in the control group (38.1%). In the control group, the CC subgroup had a statistically significantly lower retear rate (16.7%) than did the IC subgroup. There were no retear cases in the CC subgroup of the allograft group. Conclusions: Long-term follow-up of arthroscopic repair of large rotator cuff tears with allograft patch augmentation showed better clinical and anatomical results. Footprint coverage after rotator cuff repair was an important factor affecting the retear rate. If the footprint was not completely covered after rotator cuff repair, allograft patch augmentation may reduce the retear rate.

Indexed as

Rotator Cuff InjuriesAllograftsFollow-Up StudiesHumansProspective StudiesRotator CuffTreatment OutcomeAllodermAllograftArthroscopyFootprint coverageRotator cuff tear

Identifiers

PMID35685982
PMCPMC9152903
OpenAlexW4282920601

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.