ArticleJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2023
Rates of medial and lateral row failure and risk factors for Re-tear in arthroscopic double row rotator cuff repair.
Article in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strontium‑based metal‑organic framework/alendronate‑silk fibroin hydrogels promote tendon‑bone interface healing.Molecular medicine reports · 2026Article
- Hypogonadism is associated with worse outcomes in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.JSES international · 2025Article
- Acceptability of biologic treatments to patients undergoing rotator cuff repair.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2025Article
- A Narrative Review on the Double Pulley-Triple Row Technique for Large to Massive Rotator Cuff Repair.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2025Review
- Sling Versus Abduction Brace Shoulder Immobilization After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A common postoperative complication after rotator cuff repair is re-tear requiring a secondary procedure. Double row and trans-osseous equivalent repair techniques have become increasingly popular in recent years, however repair failure remains a relatively common complication after primary rotator cuff repair. A retrospective observational study of 389 consecutive patients undergoing arthroscopic double-row rotator cuff repair from February 1, 2014 to March 31, 2020 was conducted. Univariate and multivariate statistics were used to assess differences in demographics, comorbidities, and tear characteristics between patients who experienced re-tear and those who did not. Repair failures were confirmed by plain MRI or intraoperatively during repeat surgical treatment. A subgroup analysis of patients who experienced re-tear due to medial row failure was conducted. The overall re-tear rate was 8.2% (32 patients). Six patients (1.5%) experienced medial row failure, while 26 patients (6.7%) experienced lateral row failure. The average time to re-tear was 279.3 ± 291.2 days. On multivariate analysis, patients with Goutallier Classification ≥3 (OR: 4.274, p = 0.046) and 3 anchor repair (OR: 5.387, p = 0.027) were at significantly increased risk for any re-tear after controlling for other tear characteristics. No statistically significant independent risk factors for medial row failure were identified after controlling for confounding variables. Goutallier classification greater than 3 and a primary repair with 3 anchors are significant risk factors for re-tear after double row rotator cuff repair, however they are not associated with increased occurrence of medial row failure. Further evaluation of risk factors for medial row failure is required to avoid this rare but serious re-tear pattern.
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.