ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
UltraTape and sutures combination versus conventional sutures in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a 6-month retrospective matched cohort study.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 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.
- Reply to Sun et al.: Methodological clarifications regarding "Ultratape and sutures combination versus conventional sutures in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a 6-month retrospective matched cohort study".Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBiomechanical testing for tendon repair using new generation tapes at time zero showed superior mechanical strength and higher load to failure compared to conventional sutures. The aim of this study was to determine if the biomechanical advantage of UltraTape would translate into a better repair integrity and higher functional outcome in the clinical setting.
methodsRetrospective analysis of 81 matched consecutive patients (suture group, n = 53; tape group, n = 28) with a cuff tear size greater than 1.5*1 cm² (antero-posterior * medio-lateral diameters) repaired by a single senior surgeon.
results6-months post-surgery, no significant difference in retear rates between the tape and the suture groups (control) (25%;7/28)(15%;8/53)(P = 0.3) respectively. Clinically, lift-off strength (48 ± 6) was significantly higher in the tape group compared to the suture group (39 ± 4)(P < 0.01). Frequency of pain on activity (1.2 ± 0.4), the level of pain at rest (0.2 ± 0.1), passive internal rotation (7 ± 1) and the overall satisfaction of patients about their shoulders (2 ± 0.4) were significantly lower in the tape group compared to the suture group (1.8 ± 0.3)(0.5 ± 0.1)(10 ± 1)(3.5 ± 0.1)(P < 0.01). Operative time was significantly higher in the tape group (35 ± 2.9 min) compared to the suture group (20 ± 1.4 min) (P < 0.01).
conclusion6 months post cuff repair, the combination of an UltraTape with conventional sutures did not reduce the re-tear rate. Additionally, despite showing higher shoulder lift-off strength, lower level of shoulder pain at rest and lower frequency of shoulder pain on activity, the UltraTape/Sutures combination prolonged the time needed for repair, reduced shoulder internal rotation level and lowered the patients' overall satisfaction about their shoulders.
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.