ArticleJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2025
Cost analysis of dermal allograft patch utilization in rotator cuff repair.
Article in JSES reviews, reports, and techniques, 2025. 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.
- Rotator cuff disease, repair and augmentation.Bulletin of the Hospital for Joint Disease (2013) · 2026Review
- Augmentation Techniques for Rotator Cuff Repairs.JBJS reviews · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To perform an analysis of intraoperative costs associated with arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) acellular dermal allograft patch augmentation and interposition. Methods: This was a matched cohort retrospective cost identification analysis. We identified patients who underwent arthroscopic RCR with acellular dermal allograft patch augmentation or interposition between 2014 and 2023 at a single academic center. These were matched based on age and tear size to a cohort of patients who underwent arthroscopic RCR without a patch. Patients without preoperative MRI data were excluded. Via chart review, we collected demographics, medical comorbidities, tear characteristics, and intraoperative repair characteristics. Patch and control patients were compared with paired t tests. Differences in costs between patch and control patients were assessed using multivariable regression controlling for observable covariates. Results: One hundred and thirty-two (132) total patients were included: 66 patch patients and 66 control patients. The patch group demonstrated more tear retraction and utilized single row medial repair more frequently. Multivariable analysis revealed that there was a $4930 total direct cost increase with the utilization of a patch ( Conclusion: The addition of a patch increases the total direct cost by $4930 when compared to arthroscopic RCR without a patch. Increased ASA, biceps tenodesis, and use of a double row repair construct were also associated with increased cost.
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.