ArticleJSES international2024
Arthroscopic margin convergence of large-sized rotator cuff tears does not lead to better clinical outcome compared with conventional repair.
Article in JSES international, 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.
- Margin Convergence Yields Comparable Clinical Outcomes With Repair Using the Interval Slide Technique in Patients Who Had Undergone Complete Repair of Large-to-Massive Rotator Cuff Tears.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Advancements in the Management of Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tears.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The margin convergence (MC) technique is used to repair longitudinal-type tears as direct repair of the apex of the longitudinal-type tear from medial to lateral is challenging. Few studies have compared the postoperative clinical outcomes and retear rates of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) using the MC technique with those of conventional ARCR without using the MC technique. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the efficacy of MC on the clinical outcome and retear rates of patients with large-sized rotator cuff tears. It was hypothesized that ARCR using the MC technique would yield clinical outcome and retear rates similar to those of ARCR without using the MC technique. Methods: The medical records of consecutive patients who underwent ARCR for large-sized rotator cuff tears were retrospectively evaluated. Forty-four and 35 shoulders were repaired using MC (MC group) and not using MC (non-MC group), respectively. The range of motion (ROM) and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score were assessed preoperatively and after a minimum follow-up period of 12 months postoperatively. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed at least 3 months postoperatively to determine whether the tendons had healed. Results: The average postoperative follow-up duration was 26.6 months and 24.3 months in the MC and non-MC groups, respectively. The mean ROM and JOA score improved significantly in both groups postoperatively; however, the postoperative range of external rotation and the total JOA score was significantly lower in the MC group. The overall retear rate did not differ significantly between the MC (13/44, 29.5%) and non-MC (7/35, 20.0%) groups, respectively ( Conclusion: ARCR using MC of large-sized longitudinal-type tears does not lead to better postoperative range of external rotation and clinical outcome compared with those of conventional repair.
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.