SynthesisEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2024
Single-row versus transosseous technique in the arthroscopic treatment of rotator cuff tears: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Arthroscopic transosseous anchorless versus suture anchor repair for rotator cuff tears: a meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Pooled it
- There is a relationship between the acromial index, the critical shoulder angle, and rotator cuff tears.Musculoskeletal surgery · 2026Article
- Biomechanical Evaluation of a Novel Anchorless Transosseous Suture: The Open-Box Technique in Rotator Cuff Repair.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluating transosseous anchorless repair for arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery: a comparative study with double row anchor repair.Clinics in shoulder and elbow · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to compare single-row suture-anchors (SA) versus transosseous arthroscopic (TO) technique in the treatment of patients with rotator cuff tears in terms of clinical structural outcomes at atleast 24 months of follow-up.
methodsThe systematic review was performed according to "PRISMA guidelines" (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses), in order to identify all the studies comparing clinical, both subjective and objective, outcomes with 24 months follow-up minimum in patients undergoing arthroscopic RC repair with the SR and TO technique. OVID-MEDLINE®, Cochrane, SCOPUS and PubMed were searched from January 2010 to October 2022 to identify relevant studies, using the following key words, that were combined together to achieve maximum search strategy sensitivity: "Rotator cuff tear" OR "repair" OR "shoulder" OR "reconstruction" OR "suture" OR "arthroscopic" OR "single-row" OR "transosseous".
resultsSix papers were finally analyzed in this meta-analysis. The weighted mean difference on Constant scores and for ASES for studies considering suture-anchors (SA) group showed good outcomes. The weighted mean difference of Constant scores and of ASES for TO (transosseous) group showed good outcomes. The weighted mean difference of CONSTANT for TO versus SA groups showed no differences in the outcomes of SA and TO techniques for the repair of Rotator Cuff Tears at minimum 24 months follow-up.
conclusionsThe Arthroscopic transosseous rotator cuff repair technique and SA (suture-anchor) technique both lead to significant short-term improvement and satisfactory subjective outcome scores with low complication/failure rates. No differences were found in the final outcome between the two techniques.
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.