ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024
Comparison of En Masse Repair versus Separate Double-Layer Repair for Delaminated Rotator Cuff Tears: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDelamination of cuff tendons has a negative impact on outcomes following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR). The purpose of this study is to compare en masse repair (EMR) and separate double-layer repair (SDLR) for delaminated rotator cuff tears.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted on major databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus) until 1 June 2023. Comparative studies with a minimum 24-month follow-up of patients undergoing arthroscopic RCR for delaminated tears were included. The outcomes assessed retear rates and functional outcomes.
resultsFive eligible studies involving 325 cases were analyzed. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference in retear rates between SDLR and EMR for delaminated tears (OR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.35-1.49). However, the meta-analysis demonstrated a significant intergroup difference in favor of the SDLR for the total Constant score (SMD = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.35 to 1.02), SST score (SMD = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.71), and postoperative range of abduction (SMD = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.64).
conclusionThe evidence suggests that the SDLR in arthroscopic RCR for delaminated rotator cuff tears leads to improved short-term functional outcomes and range of motion compared to EMR. However, there is no significant difference in retear risk between the two approaches.
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.