ArticlePloS one2025
Is it enough to utilize a single anchor for repair of rotator cuff tears ≤ 3 * 3 cm²?
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Article
- Correction: Is it enough to utilize a single anchor for repair of rotator cuff tears ≤ 3 * 3 cm²?PloS one · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBiomechanical studies showed that increasing number of anchors could improve the repair strength of the repaired cuff at time zero. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine if utilizing only a single anchor for a cuff tear repair is sufficient or otherwise to give a similar retear rate and clinical outcome as multiple anchors in a matched group of patients. STUDY
designCohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
methodsRetrospective analysis of 346 matched consecutive patients (single anchor group, n = 173; multiple anchors group, n = 173) who had cuff tears ≤ 3*3 cm² (mediolateral * anteroposterior diameters) repaired by a single senior surgeon. Ultrasound was used to evaluate the integrity of repair 6 months post-surgery. Patient and surgeon reported outcomes were used to evaluate the clinical outcome of the method used for repair.
results6 months post-surgery; the retear rate for cuff tears ≤ 1*1 cm², tears ≤ 1 cm in mediolateral diameter and > 1 cm in anteroposterior diameter and tears > 1 cm in mediolateral diameter and ≤ 1 cm in anteroposterior diameter was similar in single and multiple anchors groups (4.8%) (3.3%) (P = 1.00), (10.8%) (7.9%) (P = 0.71) and (0%) (0%) respectively. Retear rate for cuff tears > 1*1 cm² was significantly higher in single anchor group (25.4%) compared to multiple anchors groups (10.9%) (P < 0.05). Operative time was significantly lower in single anchor group (14 minutes) compared to multiple anchors group (20 minutes) (P < 0.05) only for cuff tears ≤ 1*1 cm².
conclusion6-months post-surgery; there was no significant difference in retear rate or clinical outcome between patients with tears ≤ 3*3 cm² (mediolateral * anteroposterior diameters) who had their cuff tears repaired using a single anchor compared to those who had their cuff tears repaired using multiple anchors unless both the mediolateral and anteroposterior diameters of the tear were > 1 cm, for which the utilization of multiple anchors showed a significantly lower retear rate at 6 months post-surgery. Operative time was significantly shorter only when a single anchor was used for repair of tears ≤ 1*1 cm².
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.