SynthesisThe American journal of sports medicine2026
Structural Augmentation in Rotator Cuff Repair Decreases the Risk of Retear: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The American journal of sports medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers 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
backgroundRotator cuff tears are a common orthopaedic injury often resulting in shoulder pain and functional impairment. Despite the prevalence of rotator cuff tears, the incidence of retear after rotator cuff repair (RCR) remains high. There is growing interest in the use of structural augmentation in RCR to decrease retear rates and improve patient outcomes. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical and imaging outcomes of structural augmentation versus standard RCR in patients with full-thickness rotator cuff tears. The effectiveness of different augment subtypes was also assessed. STUDY
designMeta-analysis; Level of evidence, 3.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted in CENTRAL, Embase, and Medline from inception to November 13, 2024. Eligible studies included comparative trials evaluating structural augmentation in RCR for repairable full-thickness tears. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the MINORS (Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies) score for observational studies. Meta-analyses were performed via a random effects model, with subgroup analyses performed by study design and augment type.
resultsTwenty-four studies (12 randomized controlled trials and 12 cohort studies) were included in this review, all of which evaluated biologic augments (xenograft, allograft, autograft). Structural augmentation significantly reduced the risk of retear by 35% as compared with standard RCR (risk ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48-0.89;
conclusionStructural augmentation in RCR significantly reduces retear rates, particularly with allografts, but does not improve short-term patient-reported outcomes. Further research is needed to identify which patient and tear characteristics may influence the effectiveness of augmentation.
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.