ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Remnant preservation improves early prognosis in patients with rotator cuff tears: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is still debate regarding whether the remnant tendon on the greater tuberosity should be removed during rotator cuff repair (RCR). This study aimed to evaluate whether remnant preservation (RP) in RCR leads to better clinical outcomes.
methodsMedical records of 833 consecutive patients with rotator cuff tears (RCTs) between December 2019 and April 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into a RP group and a conventional repair (CR) group, and 1:1 propensity score matching was performed based on age, sex, tear size, tear type, repair method, and fatty infiltration. After matching, 33 patients were included in each group. Clinical outcomes were compared using range of motion (ROM), visual analog scale (VAS) score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Constant-Murley score, University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA) score, Simple Shoulder Test (SST) score, and the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (quick-DASH) score preoperatively and at 3 months, 6 months, and final follow-up. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed at the final follow-up to evaluate the integrity of the repaired rotator cuff tendons.
resultsThe mean patient age was 56.6 ± 7.7 years in RP group and 56.8 ± 7.8 in CR group, with an average follow-up of 29.5 ± 4.2 months. The mean MRI follow-up time was also 29.5 ± 4.2 months. Final follow-up scores were higher than preoperative scores in both groups. There were no significant differences between the two groups in final follow-up scores for any assessment. However, at 3 and 6 months postoperatively, the RP group showed better functional scores on ASES, Constant-Murley, SST, and Quick-DASH compared to the CR group. Additionally, at 3 months postoperatively, the RP group had better VAS scores. In patients with acute tears, the differences in ASES, Constant-Murley, SST, and VAS scores between the groups were even more pronounced. The RP group also showed superior flexion, external rotation, and internal rotation at 3 and 6 months postoperatively, with no differences before surgery or at the final follow-up. Regarding abduction, the RP group had a greater angle at 6 months and at the final follow-up. There were no statistically significant differences in retear rates between the groups, although the RP group demonstrated better quality of the repaired rotator cuff.
conclusionBoth groups showed improved outcomes compared to preoperative scores at final follow-up, with no differences between groups at that time point. RP repair improved early clinical outcomes and resulted in better quality of the repaired rotator cuff compared to CR.
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.