ArticleWorld journal of orthopedics2025
Clinical comparison of arthroscopic double-row rotator cuff repair with or without long head of biceps tendon transposition.
Article in World journal of orthopedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLong head of biceps tendon (LHBT) transposition is a novel technique based on the double-row suture bridge method, utilizing autologous reconstruction to treat massive rotator cuff tears.
aimTo evaluate the mid-to-long-term clinical outcomes following the double-row repair method for massive rotator cuff tears.
methodsThis retrospective analysis included data from 53 patients with massive rotator cuff tears treated at our hospital between 2020 and 2021. The patients were divided into the double-row repair group (conventional group) and the double-row repair combined with the LHBT transposition group (transposition group). Postoperative pain was assessed using the visual analogue scale at one week, one year, and the final follow-up. Shoulder function was evaluated using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and Constant-Murley scores at one year and the final follow-up. Rotator cuff healing was assessed postoperatively for one year using the Sugaya classification, which categorizes tendon integrity based on magnetic resonance imaging findings.
resultsNo perioperative complications were observed in any of the patients at any time. There were no significant differences between the groups regarding operative time and intraoperative blood loss. The transposition group had significantly lower visual analogue scale scores than the conventional group at one week postoperatively; however, there were no significant differences between the groups at one year or the final follow-up. At one year postoperatively, the transposition group showed significantly higher American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and Constant-Murley scores than the conventional group; no significant differences were observed at the final follow-up. There were no significant differences in rotator cuff healing between the groups at one year postoperatively.
conclusionCompared to double-row repair alone, double-row repair combined with LHBT transposition for treating massive rotator cuff tears more effectively alleviates short-term postoperative pain and improves shoulder function within the first year.
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.