ReviewAnnals of joint2025
Rotator cuff repair augmentation: a review of current techniques.
Review in Annals of joint, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Biological Effect of Platelet-Rich Plasma on Subacromial Bursa and Torn Supraspinatus Tendon: A Randomized Controlled Trial.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Trial
- Decellularized Extracellular Matrix (dECM) in Tendon Regeneration: A Comprehensive Review.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Review
- [Comparative study on effectiveness of bioinductive patch-augmented arthroscopic rotator cuff repair].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026Article
- Biologic augmentation in rotator cuff repair: current evidence and future directions.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2026Review
- Structural integrity vs. clinical utility: a critical review of bio-inductive scaffolds and autologous alternatives in rotator cuff repair.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
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
Rotator cuff tears are one of the most common orthopedic injuries, affecting nearly 40% of individuals over 60 years old. Surgical repair remains the gold standard following failed conservative treatment; however, retear rates remain a significant challenge, with some studies reporting recurrence in 40% to 94% of patients. In response to these high failure rates, various surgical augmentation techniques have been developed, offering the potential to enhance healing, improve repair integrity, and optimize long-term outcomes. A comprehensive literature review was conducted to assess the current methods of augmentation for rotator cuff repair (RCR) and to provide an updated analysis of augmentation techniques for RCR from 2010 to 2025. The review includes detailed descriptions of each augmentation technique, along with associated outcomes and available evidence supporting their use in clinical practice. Augmentation techniques for RCR have advanced, showing promising improvements in patient outcomes. This review highlights the growing popularity of dermal allografts and bioinductive collagen implants, alongside the emerging use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), bone marrow aspirate concentration (BMAC) and fibrin clots. While these methods demonstrate potential, further high-quality randomized, prospective studies are needed to standardize protocols, establish clear indications, and address the variability in current evidence. Key areas requiring further investigation include the long-term durability of augmented repairs, optimal patient selection criteria, the comparative efficacy of different augmentation materials, and the cost-effectiveness of these techniques in routine clinical practice.
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.