ArticleClinics in shoulder and elbow2025
Evaluating transosseous anchorless repair for arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery: a comparative study with double row anchor repair.
Article in Clinics in shoulder and elbow, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Arthroscopic transosseous anchorless versus suture anchor repair for rotator cuff tears: a meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Pooled it
- Arthroscopic transition from suture anchors to transosseous suture technique for treating rotator cuff tear with osteoporosis- a case report.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
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
backgroundThis retrospective observational study compared outcomes of arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery using double row anchor repair (DRR) versus transosseous anchorless repair (TAR) in patients with small to large full-thickness rotator cuff tears.
methodsA total of 42 patients underwent DRR (n=20) or TAR (n=22) between January 2022 and May 2023. Patients were matched based on age, sex, body mass index, and tear severity. Baseline demographics, including diabetes, smoking status, and Cofield classification, were compared. Functional outcomes were assessed using University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, along with range of motion (ROM) parameters: forward flexion, extension, internal rotation, external rotation, and abduction.
resultsBaseline characteristics were similar between groups (P>0.05). TAR showed higher UCLA scores at 3 and 6 months (P<0.001) and superior ASES scores at 3 (P=0.025) and 6 months (P<0.001) compared to DRR. By 1 year, no significant differences were observed in UCLA (P=0.101), ASES (P=0.051), or ROM parameters (P>0.05).
conclusionsBoth DRR and TAR showed comparable outcomes at 1 year. However, TAR demonstrated early functional benefits at 3 and 6 months, indicating potential advantages in the initial recovery phase. Level of evidence: III.
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.