ArticleInternational orthopaedics2025
Superior capsular reconstruction after failed rotator cuff repair using a fascia lata autograft is associated with inferior outcomes compared to primary superior capsular reconstruction for irreparable massive rotator cuff tears.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Partial repair versus superior capsular reconstruction: comparable mid-term outcomes in non-pseudoparalytic massive irreparable rotator cuff tears.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Clinical Retrospective Study on Superior Capsular Reconstruction Using Autologous Fascia Lata Combined With LARS Ligament for Massive Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tears.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Article
- Arthroscopic Repair Versus Conservative Treatment in Degenerative Cuff Tears: Midterm Results.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to investigate the effect of failed rotator cuff repair (RCR) on surgical outcomes after superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) using a fascia lata autograft.
methodsWe included 79 patients with irreparable massive rotator cuff tears who underwent SCR using fascia lata autografts between 2018 and 2023, with a minimum follow-up of ≥ one year. Of them, 66 patients underwent primary SCR (primary SCR group) and 13 underwent SCR after structural failure of previous RCR (revision SCR group). Clinical outcomes, including American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Constant score, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, and range of motion, were assessed. Radiological outcomes were evaluated using radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) values determined the clinical relevance of the difference in functional outcomes. Graft tears were recorded if graft discontinuity was found on MRI.
resultsThe revision SCR group showed worse VAS (2.1 vs. 1.1, P = 0.025), ASES (69.7 vs. 82.4, P = 0.008), Constant (57.1 vs. 64.3, P = 0.016) scores and higher graft tear rates (61.5% vs. 21.2%; P = 0.049) than the primary SCR group. The differences in VAS, ASES, and Constant scores exceeded the MCID threshold in the primary SCR group at a mean final follow-up of 2.1 ± 1.0 years. Conversely, in the revision SCR group, only the difference in Constant score exceeded the MCID threshold at a mean final follow-up of 2.2 ± 1.6 years, and patients with intact grafts showed significantly better VAS score and acromiohumeral distance (both P = 0.030) than those with torn grafts.
conclusionSCR using fascia lata autograft improved surgical outcomes for primary and revision SCRs. However, revision SCR showed worse outcomes and higher graft tear rates compared to primary SCR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40531208What 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.