ArticleClinics in shoulder and elbow2025
Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with manipulation under anesthesia yields similar clinical outcomes to isolated rotator cuff repair and is associated with lower retear rates in medium-sized tears.
Article in Clinics in shoulder and elbow, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe role of manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) without arthroscopic capsular release in patients with preoperative stiffness undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) remains unclear. Additionally, the association between shoulder stiffness and tendon healing after ARCR is still controversial. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and retear rates between patients with preoperative stiffness treated by MUA alone and those without stiffness.
methodsThis retrospective study included 322 patients who underwent ARCR for full-thickness tears between January 2012 and May 2022 with a minimum 2 years of follow-up. Clinical outcomes-including passive range of motion (ROM); the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score; and the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) score-were assessed preoperatively and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Patients were divided into the stiffness group (MUA completed) and the non-stiffness group. Retears were evaluated using magnetic resonance imaging at 6 months postoperatively, and retear rates were analyzed by tear size (medium vs. large/massive).
resultsEighty-eight patients with stiffness and 234 without stiffness met the study inclusion criteria. Preoperative ROM, JOA, and UCLA scores were significantly lower in the stiffness group. Both groups showed significant improvements at final follow-up, with greater gains in the stiffness group. Final outcomes were comparable, except for external rotation. In medium-sized tears, the retear rate was significantly lower in the stiffness group (1.9%) than in the non-stiffness group (10.8%) (P=0.042). No significant difference was observed for large/massive tears.
conclusionsPatients with preoperative stiffness treated with MUA alone achieved comparable outcomes to those without stiffness, with improved tendon healing in medium-sized tears. Level of evidence: III.
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.