ArticleOrthopedic reviews2025
Comparative Efficacy of Biologic Augmentations in Gluteus Medius Tendon Repair is Lacking: A Systematic Review.
Article in Orthopedic reviews, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Gluteus medius tendon (GMT) tears are a widely recognized source of lateral hip pain and weakness. While surgical repair often leads to symptom relief, outcomes are less favorable in cases involving chronic or high-grade tears. To improve healing, a variety of biologic augmentation strategies have been explored, including platelet-rich plasma (PRP), platelet-rich fibrin matrix (PRFM), collagen patches, dermal allografts, synthetic scaffolds, and bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC). However, their effectiveness remains uncertain. Objective: To systematically review published clinical outcomes associated with different biologic augmentation techniques used in GMT repair. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted through PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase for studies published between 2000 and 2025 reporting on the surgical repair of GMT tears with biologic augmentation. Data extracted included study design, type of biologic intervention, and postoperative clinical and imaging outcomes. Results: A total of four studies comprising 123 hips were included, and all studies reported improvements in patient reported outcomes following surgical repair. However, the two available comparative studies found no significant differences in pain or function between augmented and unaugmented repairs. Case series of collagen patch augmentation demonstrated favorable structural healing in early clinical outcomes, while synthetic mesh combined with muscle transfer showed improvement in patients with irreparable tears. Conclusion: While biologic augmentation in GMT repair appears safe and technically feasible, more data needs to be published relative to the results obtained with commonly used orthobiologic augmentation to determine if and under what circumstances such treatment provides consistent clinical advantage over standard repair.
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.