ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2024
Clinical Outcomes and Repair Integrity After Double-Row Modified Mason-Allen Repair Technique With a Single Knot in Small to Medium Supraspinatus Tears.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 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.
- Prospective comparative study of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with or without acellular dermal matrix augmentation: Clinical and radiological outcomes.Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica · 2025Trial
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Various arthroscopic rotator cuff repair techniques are being used for the treatment of rotator cuff tears with the development of surgical instruments. However, retears after repair are not completely avoidable, and efforts to reduce retears remain a challenge. Purpose/Hypothesis: To introduce a new repair technique, the double-row modified Mason-Allen technique with a single knot, and to compare clinical outcomes and retear rates with the single-row modified Mason-Allen technique. It was hypothesized that this new technique would have a better clinical outcome and significantly lower retear rate than the single-row modified Mason-Allen technique. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 110 patients with small- to medium-sized (<1.5 cm) full-thickness supraspinatus tears were enrolled into 2 groups, with 65 patients receiving the single-row modified Mason-Allen technique (group A) and 45 patients receiving the double-row modified Mason-Allen technique with a single knot (group B). The clinical and functional outcomes were evaluated using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score; and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and satisfaction scores. All patients enrolled in this study were monitored for a minimum of 24 months. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed to analyze the integrity of tendons and retear at 6 months after surgery. Results: No statistically significant differences between the 2 groups were found regarding the VAS for pain, ASES, and DASH scores. However, retear was found in 9 patients (13.8%) in group A and 1 patient (2.2%) in group B. The difference in the retear rate was statistically significant between the 2 groups ( Conclusion: A significantly lower retear rate and comparable clinical outcomes were seen after the double-row modified Mason-Allen repair technique with a single knot when compared with the single-row modified Mason-Allen technique. Based on these findings, the double-row modified Mason-Allen repair technique with a single knot can be considered a surgical treatment option that can provide sufficient stability in small- to medium-sized supraspinatus tears.
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.