ReviewJournal of orthopaedics2026
Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) of arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair-an overview of meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of orthopaedics, 2026. 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.
- Anterolateral Miniopen Triple-Row Repair With Acellular Human Dermal Matrix Patch Augmentation for Larger Rotator Cuff Tears.Arthroscopy techniques · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Rotator cuff tears are a leading cause of shoulder pain and disability. While both arthroscopic repair (ASR) and mini-open rotator cuff repair (MOR) techniques are widely practised, evidence remains inconclusive regarding their relative clinical efficacy. This overview of meta-analyses aimed to compare patient-reported and functional outcomes between ASR and MOR. Methods: A systematic overview of published meta-analyses was conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched using relevant keywords. Meta-analyses evaluating outcomes in adults undergoing ASR or MOR were included. Data extraction focused on functional scores (Constant-Murley, UCLA, ASES), pain (VAS), range of motion, surgical duration, and complications (retear rate, adhesive capsulitis). Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4 with random- or fixed-effects models depending on heterogeneity (I Results: Eight meta-analyses comprising a mean of 995.75 procedures (ASR: 533.5, MOR: 462.25) were included. No significant differences were observed between ASR and MOR for Constant-Murley Score (p = 0.70), ASES (p = 0.90), VAS (p = 1.0), range of motion, retear rate (p = 0.08), or adhesive capsulitis (p = 0.58). MOR demonstrated a significantly shorter operative time compared with ASR (p = 0.007). However, ASR demonstrated a higher UCLA score compared with MOR (p = 0.03). Conclusion: Both arthroscopic and mini-open rotator cuff repair techniques yield comparable clinical and patient-reported outcomes. While the mini-open approach offers a shorter operative duration, the choice of technique should be guided primarily by surgeon expertise, tear characteristics, and patient-specific factors. Further high-quality studies incorporating imaging and long-term follow-up are warranted to optimise rotator cuff repair strategies.
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.