ArticleInternational journal of surgery (London, England)2026
All-suture soft anchors versus metal anchors in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a multicenter randomized clinical trial.
Article in International journal of surgery (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe study investigates the safety and efficacy of all-suture soft anchors (ASSA) versus metal anchors (MA) in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) through a randomized controlled trial, assessing whether ASSA's advantages - reduced bone loss and simplified deployment - can achieve non-inferior clinical outcomes compared to conventional MA. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a multicenter randomized controlled trial at five Chinese tertiary hospitals (Jan-Oct 2022), with final follow-up in December 2023. Eligible patients had small-to-medium full-thickness rotator cuff tears, Ellman III bursal-side tears, or Lafosse I-IV subscapularis tears. Participants were randomized 1:1 to ARCR with ASSA or MA, followed at 6 weeks, 3, 6, and 12 months. The outcome was included Constant-Murley Score (CMS), American shoulder and elbow surgeons (ASES) score, visual analog scale (VAS) pain, passive range of motion (PROM), and radiographic assessments (postoperative, 6/12 months). All adverse events were recorded. Finally, 87 patients were randomized (ASSA = 43, MA = 44) and 85 received allocated treatment (42 vs 43).
resultsASSA showed better midterm (6-month) functional recovery ( P = 0.031) and pain reduction ( P = 0.005). There was no difference in ASES, VAS, or adverse events (all P > 0.05). After 12 months, both groups showed improved CMS ( P < 0.001), with no between-group difference ( P = 0.900). No anchor dislocations observed.
conclusionASSA showed comparable safety and efficacy to MA in ARCR after 12 months of follow-up, with superior improvement in early functional recovery and pain alleviation in midterm (6-month) functional recovery and pain relief, supporting its use as an alternative suture anchor for ARCR.
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.