ArticleJSES international2026
Risk factors for retear of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using triple-row technique.
Article in JSES international, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The triple-row (TR) technique enhances tendon-to-bone contact and repair integrity in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR). However, limited studies have evaluated the clinical outcomes and risk factors for retears following this technique. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes between retear and nonretear groups after ARCR using the TR technique and identify risk factors for retear. Methods: Patients who underwent ARCR using the TR technique with at least 24 months follow-up were enrolled and categorized into retear and nonretear groups. Clinical outcomes, including range of motion, visual analog scale for pain, Constant Shoulder (CS), and University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) score, were evaluated at 3, 6, and 24 months postoperatively. The retear rate and tendon integrity were assessed at 3, 6, and 24 months follow-up using magnetic resonance imaging, and risk factors for retear were analyzed. Results: Of 181 patients enrolled, 20 (11%) had retears and 161 (89%) had no retears. The retear group was significantly older ( Conclusion: ARCR using the TR technique provides favorable clinical outcomes, even in cases with retears. However, patients with retears-especially those with large-to-massive tears or severe infraspinatus fatty infiltration-showed inferior outcomes.
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.