ReviewArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2024
Rotator Cuff Repair Study Designs Correlate With Revision Shoulder Surgery Rates: A Systematic Review.
Review in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 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.
- Clinical outcomes of modified Kessler tension-reducing suturing combined with double-row repair for Patte II-III rotator cuff tears.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Partial-Thickness Bursal-Site Rotator Cuff Repair With Autologous Bursa Augmentation.Arthroscopy techniques · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To identify arthroscopic rotator cuff repair study groups and evaluate if study design or other study characteristics correlate with a repeat ipsilateral shoulder surgery. Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted on March 20, 2021, and April 2, 2021. The following search terms were used by 2 different researchers: ((Rotator cuff repair[Title/Abstract]) AND (Revision[Title/Abstract]) NOT (Systematic Review[Title/Abstract]) NOT (arthroplasty[Title/Abstract]). All English-language studies published between 2002 and 2021 were manually reviewed for revision rate as a primary outcome of primary rotator cuff repair. Revision rate is defined as the percentage of primary rotator cuff repairs that underwent revision. Results: Sixteen studies with 25 total treatment groups were included. Five Level IV studies and 11 Level III studies encompassed a total of 95,578 patients. Of these treatment groups, the revision rate was compared by the study style (prospective vs retrospective), sample size, time required to follow up, time to follow up, average age, and postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score. No significant difference was found between revision rates of retrospective and prospective studies. A significant correlation was found between time required to follow up and revision rate (.42, Conclusions: In this study, we found that prospective and retrospective studies report similar revision rates after arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs. There was an association between longer follow-up and higher revision rate. Clinical Relevance: Prospective and retrospective studies yielding similar results is an important finding when showing the validity of retrospective studies. Understanding the positive correlation between a longer time for follow-up and a higher revision rate along with how age, postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores, and average time to follow up correlate with revision rates is a useful consideration when designing studies and evaluating data.
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.