Trial reportEuropean journal of medical research2025
A comparison of the double-locking loop stitching technique and traditional repair techniques for partial-thickness bursal-side rotator cuff tears: randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in European journal of medical 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.
- Comparison of Different Treatment Strategies for Long Head of Biceps Tendon in Rotator Cuff Repair: A Review.International journal of general medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis prospective randomized study compared the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing arthroscopic repair for partial-thickness bursal-side rotator cuff tears (PT-BRCTs) using the double-locking loop stitching technique (DLLST) versus traditional conversion-to-full-thickness repair techniques.
methodsThe study included 110 patients with PT-BRCTs exceeding 50% of tendon thickness. They were randomly assigned to two groups during surgery. Ninety-four patients completed follow-up (Group I: DLLST, n = 43; Group II: traditional repair, n = 51). Clinical outcomes, including range of motion (ROM), visual analog scale (VAS), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Constant score, and modified SF-12 quality-of-life scores, were assessed preoperatively, at 3 months, and final follow-up. Postoperative MRI evaluated tendon integrity.
resultsBoth groups demonstrated significant improvements in all clinical parameters (P < 0.05). At final follow-up, Group I exhibited superior ASES (91.25 ± 2.88 vs. 89.95 ± 3.24, P = 0.042) and Constant scores (91.19 ± 2.73 vs. 90 ± 2.76, P = 0.040), along with faster pain reduction at 3 months (VAS: 2.19 ± 1.33 vs. 2.67 ± 0.99, P = 0.023). No significant differences were observed in SF-12 scores (P > 0.05). MRI confirmed complete tendon healing in all cases.
conclusionBoth techniques provided satisfactory functional recovery and pain relief for PT-BRCTs exceeding 50% of tendon thickness. However, DLLST achieved faster functional restoration while preserving tendon integrity, suggesting its potential as a biomechanically advantageous alternative.
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.