SynthesisEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2025
A meta-analysis of the outcomes of large to massive rotator cuff tears treated with direct repair, graft augmentation, or superior capsular reconstruction.
Synthesis in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSeveral surgical techniques are used to treat large to massive reparable rotator cuff tears, including arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR), graft augmentation (GA), and superior capsular reconstruction (SCR). However, direct comparisons among these three approaches remain limited in the current literature.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and comparative studies focusing on large to massive rotator cuff tears. Outcomes included American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, Constant-Murley scores, and retear rates. Data analyses were performed using Cochrane Review Manager, with statistical significance set at p ≤ 0.05.
resultsA total of 10 studies (606 patients) were included in this analysis. The comparison between ARCR and GA comprised 7 RCTs and 1 comparative study. Although no significant difference was observed in Constant-Murley scores (mean difference 3.24, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] -1.36, 7.83), the ARCR group exhibited a higher retear rate than the GA group (Risk Ratio [RR] 0.53, 95% CI 0.28, 0.98, p < 0.05). One RCT comparing GA to SCR demonstrated similar ASES scores (GA 77.9 ± 19.9; SCR 74.8 ± 23.9), with SCR having slightly lower retear rates (GA 36%, SCR 25%). Only one cohort study compared SCR to ARCR, which reported similar ASES scores (SCR 85.4 ± 15; ARCR 85.4 ± 16.5) and retear rates (SCR 7%, ARCR 3.5%).
conclusionsAll three surgical interventions were effective in repairing large to massive rotator cuff tears. However, this analysis found no significant evidence favoring one surgical method, aside from a lower risk of retear in patients with GA compared to ARCR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40836122What 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.