ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
Double-row suture-bridge technique does not yield better clinical and radiological results than single-row technique in patients older than 55 years at 2 years minimum follow-up: A comparative study.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Double-row suture-bridge technique does not yield better clinical and radiological results than single-row technique in patients older than 55 years at 2 years minimum follow-up: A comparative study.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair has evolved, with suture anchor-based techniques like single-row (SR) and Double-row Suture-bridge (DRSB) gaining popularity. Despite improvements, early repair failures remain concerning, necessitating continued assessment of repair methods and devices' lasting impact. This study compares DRSB versus SR repairs at 24 months minimum follow-up, hypothesizing superior clinical outcomes and improved tendon healing with DRSB techniques. Methods: Fifty patients with rotator cuff tears underwent either SR or DRSB repairs. Clinical evaluation included standardized scoring systems and strength testing. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) assessed tendon integrity. Partial cuff tears were evaluated according to Snyder's Southern California Orthopaedic Institute rotator cuff classification system, which classifies <2 cm lesions as C2 in its scoring system. Results: Both groups showed comparable clinical outcomes, strength and MRI findings at 24 months minimum follow-up. No significant correlation was found between repair technique and clinical outcomes or retear rates. Preoperative Patte and Goutallier grades >1 were associated with lower postoperative Constant-Murley scores. Conclusion: This study suggests that both SR and DRSB techniques offer comparable clinical outcomes and tendon healing rates for rotator cuff tears in patients over 55 at 24 months minimum follow-up. While limitations exist, our findings contribute to understanding optimal surgical approaches, emphasizing individualized treatment based on patient characteristics and surgeon expertise. Further research, including randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up, is needed to refine treatment algorithms and improve patient outcomes in rotator cuff surgery. Level of Evidence: Level 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.