ReviewJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2026
Transtendon repair vs. tear completion in partial-thickness rotator cuff tears: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in JSES reviews, reports, and techniques, 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
Background: Partial-thickness rotator cuff tears (PTRCTs) are common and present a treatment dilemma between preserving the intact tendon with transtendon repair or converting the lesion to a full-thickness tear before repair. Comparative evidence on clinical outcomes and retear rates lacks consensus regarding the optimal treatment of PTRCTs. Therefore, we aimed to systematically compare functional outcomes and tendon integrity following transtendon vs. tear completion repair for PTRCTs. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed and Scopus was conducted from inception to May 2025. Studies directly comparing the 2 surgical approaches and reporting post-operative functional scores (Constant-Murley, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES], visual analog scale) or imaging-confirmed tendon integrity were included. Pooled mean differences (MDs) and odds ratios were calculated using random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Results: Nine studies (3 randomized trials, 6 observational; 719 patients-336 transtendon, 385 tear completion repairs) were included. Pooled analysis demonstrated no significant differences between the techniques for Constant-Murley (MD: -0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.71 to 0.12; Discussion: This meta-analysis found no clinically meaningful difference between transtendon and tear completion repair in terms of shoulder function or tendon healing. Surgical choice should be individualized according to tear characteristics, intraoperative findings, and surgeon expertise.
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.