ArticleArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2025
Postoperative Outcomes Are Comparable Between Arthroscopic Subscapularis Repairs Performed With Either All-Suture Anchors or Hard-Body Anchors.
Article in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- L-Shaped Three-Portal Configuration for Arthroscopic Double-Row Suture Repair of Lafosse Type III and IV Subscapularis Tears.Arthroscopy techniques · 2026Article
- Semitendinosus Allograft Anterior Cable Reconstruction for Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tears Utilizing the Superior Glenoid Margin for Glenoid Fixation.Arthroscopy techniques · 2025Article
- Subscapularis Tendon Repair Using Transtendon Double-Pulley Technique With All-Suture Anchor.Arthroscopy techniques · 2025Article
- Intra-articular Subscapularis Repair Using Transtendon Lasso-Loop Technique With All-Suture Anchor.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare clinical outcomes and tendon healing rates of patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs involving the subscapularis (SSC) tendon (isolated or combined) with all-suture anchors (ASAs) versus hard-body anchors (HBAs) and to compare SSC healing rates between these 2 anchors. Methods: A retrospective comparative study was performed on patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair of the SSC with either ASAs or HBAs and had a minimum 2-year follow-up. Range of motion and patient-reported outcomes were collected pre- and postoperatively, including a visual analog scale for pain, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, and Subjective Shoulder Value. Postoperative strength was measured, including Constant strength and belly press test. SSC healing was evaluated on ultrasounds at the final follow-up. Results: Eighty-four patients met the study criteria. Twenty-eight underwent SSC repair with ASAs and 56 with HBAs. The mean follow-up for the ASA group and HBA group was 44 ± 22.7 months and 48.4 ± 28.3, respectively ( Conclusions: Arthroscopic SSC repair leads to significant functional improvement, with both ASAs and HBAs demonstrating similar low failure rates. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.
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.