ReviewTissue engineering. Part B, Reviews2024
Optimizing Tissue Engineering for Clinical Relevance in Rotator Cuff Repair.
Review in Tissue engineering. Part B, Reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Augmentation Techniques for Rotator Cuff Repairs.JBJS reviews · 2025Review
- The interplay between mesenchymal stem cells and the immune microenvironment in rotator cuff tendon-to-bone healing: current progress and future directions.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Rotator cuff tear (RCT) is the most common cause of disability in the upper extremity. It results in 4.5 million physician visits in the United States every year and is the most common etiology of shoulder conditions evaluated by orthopedic surgeons. Over 460,000 RCT repair surgeries are performed in the United States annually. Rotator cuff (RC) retear and failure to heal remain significant postoperative complications. Literature suggests that the retear rates can range from 29.5% to as high as 94%. Weakened and irregular enthesis regeneration is a crucial factor in postsurgical failure. Although commercially available RC repair grafts have been introduced to augment RC enthesis repair, they have been associated with mixed clinical outcomes. These grafts lack appropriate biological cues such as stem cells and signaling molecules at the bone-tendon interface. In addition, they do little to prevent fibrovascular scar tissue formation, which causes the RC to be susceptible to retear. Advances in tissue engineering have demonstrated that mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and growth factors (GFs) enhance RC enthesis regeneration in animal models. These models show that delivering MSCs and GFs to the site of RCT enhances native enthesis repair and leads to greater mechanical strength. In addition, these models demonstrate that MSCs and GFs may be delivered through a variety of methods including direct injection, saturation of repair materials, and loaded microspheres. Grafts that incorporate MSCs and GFs enhance anti-inflammation, osteogenesis, angiogenesis, and chondrogenesis in the RC repair process. It is crucial that the techniques that have shown success in animal models are incorporated into the clinical setting. A gap currently exists between the promising biological factors that have been investigated in animal models and the RC repair grafts that can be used in the clinical setting. Future RC repair grafts must allow for stable implantation and fixation, be compatible with current arthroscopic techniques, and have the capability to deliver MSCs and/or GFs.
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.