ArticleEFORT open reviews2023
Biodegradable vs nonbiodegradable suture anchors for rotator cuff repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in EFORT open reviews, 2023. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- All-suture soft anchors versus metal anchors in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a multicenter randomized clinical trial.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Evolution of Anchor Polymer Systems Used in Arthroscopic Shoulder Surgery-A Comprehensive Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Stage 2a IDEAL evaluation of a third-generation biocomposite suture anchor in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: subgroup cohort analysis of the PRULO registry with 12-month follow up.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- [Research progress of magnesium and magnesium alloy implants in sports medicine].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2024Review
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 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The use of non-biodegradable suture anchors (NBSA) in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) has increased significantly. However, several complications such as migration, chondral damage, revision, and imaging difficulties have been reported. Meanwhile, the effectiveness of biodegradable suture anchors (BSA) in overcoming such complications and achieving functional outcomes requires further study. Thus, we aim to compare the clinical outcomes and complications of RCR using BSA and NBSA using direct comparison studies. Methods: Two independent reviewers conducted systematic searches in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from conception to September 2022. Using the RoB 2 and ROBINS-I tools, we assessed the included studies for bias. We applied GRADE to appraise our evidence. Our PROSPERO registration number is CRD42022354347. Results: Six studies (two randomized controlled trials, one retrospective cohort, and three case-control studies) involving 423 patients were included (211 patients received BSA and 212 patients received NBSA). BSA was comparable to NBSA in forward flexion, abduction, external rotation, Constant-Murley score, and perianchor cyst formation (P = 0.97, 0.81, 0.56, 0.29, and 0.56, respectively). Retear rates were slightly higher while tendon healing was reduced in BSA compared to NBSA, but the differences were not significant (P = 0.35 and 0.35, respectively). Conclusion: BSA and NBSA appear to yield similar shoulder functions and complications in rotator cuff repairs.
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.