ArticleJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews2026
Reusable Instrumentation for Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair May Not Impact Clinical Outcomes.
Article in Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHospitals contribute to substantial environmental waste and greenhouse gas emissions, with operating rooms accounting for 50% to 70% of hospital waste. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR), a commonly performed procedure, typically uses disposable instruments to minimize infection risk. There is limited evidence regarding the clinical safety and effectiveness of disposable instruments compared with reusable instruments. We aimed to evaluate whether reusable instrumentation for arthroscopic RCR affects clinical outcomes.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study involving 191 patients undergoing primary arthroscopic RCR. Patients were divided into reusable (N = 89) and disposable (N = 102) instrumentation cohorts. Primary outcomes included rates of postoperative soft-tissue infection and septic revision within 1 year postoperatively. Data were analyzed using frequentist and Bayesian statistical methods.
resultsInfection rates and septic revisions were similar between reusable and disposable instrumentation groups, with one septic revision in each cohort (P = 1.0). Aseptic revision rates were also similar (P = 0.50). Surgical times did not significantly differ between groups (reusable: 1.50 ± 0.33 hours; disposable: 1.61 ± 0.41 hours; P = 0.076). Bayesian analysis supported these findings, demonstrating no meaningful difference in infection risks between groups, with median odds ratios close to 1.0 and credible intervals including 1.0.
conclusionObserved proportions of revision and infection were similar in magnitude. These findings suggest that reusable instruments have the potential to be a safe and sustainable alternative to single-use instruments in arthroscopic RCR. However, owing to the rarity of infection and revision, future multisite studies are necessary to assess whether risk of these outcomes is noninferior to nonreusable instruments.
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.