ReviewJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2025
Comparative analysis of single-row vs. double-row technique for rotator cuff repair: a systematic review and statistical analysis.
Review in JSES reviews, reports, and techniques, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Posterosuperior and Anterior Rotator Cuff Repairs Yield Comparable 1-Year Constant Scores in Routine Clinical Practice: A Propensity Score-Matched Study From LaTour Group.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- A novel all-arthroscopic technique for biomaterials insertion and positioning on shoulder rotator cuff: Preliminary insights and experience on a cohort of 34 patients.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Clinical outcomes of modified Kessler tension-reducing suturing combined with double-row repair for Patte II-III rotator cuff tears.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Rotator cuff injuries are a common occurrence among general population. Surgical repair may be necessary when there are tendon and muscle injuries within the rotator cuff. This study aims to compare the outcomes of rotator cuff repair using the single-row technique vs. the double-row technique. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, along with Cochrane recommendations. The PubMed database was searched using the following medical subject headings terms: "rotator cuff tear," "single row," and "double row," without any time restrictions. Only clinical trials were included in the analysis. Results: A total of 269 articles were identified, and after reviewing the full text, 14 articles were assessed for eligibility. Ultimately, 9 articles were included in the analysis, comprising a total of 662 patients with partial or full-thickness rotator cuff tears. The average follow-up period after surgery was 22 months. Most of the included studies were of good quality, although some had an unclear risk of detection bias, attrition bias, and reporting bias. The overall healing rate for the single-row repair technique was 79%, while it was 89% for the double-row repair technique ( Conclusion: Double-row repair technique is associated with a higher healing rate compared to single-row repair. However, functionally, the differences detected are not clinically relevant. Future studies should focus on long-term follow-up and functional outcomes to provide further insights into the optimal surgical technique for rotator cuff 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.