Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38318394›Full record

ArticleArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2024

Primary Rotator Cuff Bridging Reconstruction Shows Better Clinical and Radiographic Results Than Revision Bridging Reconstruction.

Jillian Karpyshyn, Sara Sparavalo, Jie Ma, John-Paul King, Ivan Wong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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.

Jillian KarpyshynDivision of Orthopaedics, Department of Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Sara SparavaloDivision of Orthopaedics, Department of Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Jie MaDivision of Orthopaedics, Department of Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
John-Paul KingDivision of Orthopaedics, Department of Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Ivan WongDivision of Orthopaedics, Department of Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the outcome of revision rotator cuff bridging reconstruction (BR) as compared to primary BR in a large cohort of patients. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted for patients who underwent BR using dermal allograft for large/massive rotator cuff tears between 2010 and 2018. Patients who completed Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) and Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores both pre- and postoperatively were included. Pre- and postoperative magnetic resonance imaging scans were compared to assess for differences in fatty infiltration, muscle atrophy, and graft status. Results: Eighty patients met the inclusion criteria, including 43 patients who underwent BR as a primary surgery and 37 patients who underwent revision BR. The mean follow-up duration was 5.7 ± 1.9 years in the primary group and 5.8 ± 2.0 years in the revision group. Both WORC and DASH scores significantly improved from pre- to postoperatively for both the primary and revision groups ( Conclusions: BR using dermal allograft for large/massive irreparable rotator cuff tears showed improvement of functional outcomes, with primary cases resulting in better improvement in patient-reported outcomes compared to revision cases. Primary BR was also associated with better postoperative fatty infiltration of supraspinatus and infraspinatus muscles. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Identifiers

PMID38318394
PMCPMC10839609

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.