Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42164752›Full record

ArticleJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2026

Augmentation for rotator cuff repair - clinical use patterns and limited patient access: the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons bio-advocacy work group survey.

Brandon D Bushnell, Nathan Boes, Akin Cil, Kevin Farmer, Gregory Gilot, Hafiz Kassam, Adam Khan, Anthony Miniaci, Joshua Port, Joaquin Sanchez-Sotelo and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Brandon D BushnellAtrium Harbin Clinic, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Rome, GA, USA.
Nathan BoesApex Orthopedics, Frisco, TX, USA.
Akin CilUniversity of Missouri-Kansas City, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Kansas City, MO, USA.
Kevin FarmerUniversity of Florida, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Gregory GilotCleveland Clinic, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Hafiz KassamHoag Orthopedic Institute, Newport Beach, CA, USA.
Adam KhanKaiser Permanente Medical Group, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
Anthony MiniaciBaptist Health Orthopedic Institute, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
Joshua PortUniversity Orthopedics Center, Altoona, PA, USA.
Joaquin Sanchez-SoteloMayo Clinic, Department of Orthopedics, Rochester, MN, USA.
Mark SchultzelUnited Medical Doctors, San Diego, CA, USA.
Scott SteinmannMayo Clinic, Department of Orthopedics (Emeritus), Rochester, MN, USA.
Misty SuriOschner Andrews Sports Medicine Institute, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, New Orleans, LA, USA.
David WeinsteinColorado Center of Orthopedic Excellence, Colorado Springs, CO, USA.
Melissa WrightWashington University St. Louis, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, St. Louis, MO, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Over the last decade, treatment algorithms of rotator cuff pathology have increasingly included various forms of augmentation of rotator cuff repair (RCR). This study aimed to quantify real-world clinical patterns for RCR augmentation and provide consensus statements for clinical practice and payor consideration. It was our hypothesis that augmentation would be popular amongst surgeons, especially for reduction in retear rates, and that a high percentage of respondents would also identify restrictions to access. Material and methods: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Advocacy Committee distributed a 12-question digital survey to all current members of American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons. The survey evaluated current surgical techniques and augmentation usage, limitations on augmentation access, target patients for augmentation selection, and desired clinical outcomes. Questions were analyzed as either frequency of response or as a rank average with 95% confidence intervals. Results: The survey was sent to 1,210 surgeons, and 103 surgeons participated in the survey (8.5% response rate). The survey revealed the following: (1) use of RCR augmentation is reported by 76.2% and 85.1% of surgeons for partial-thickness tears (PTT) and full-thickness tears (FTT), respectively. However, 74.5% of surgeons indicate that they have limited or variable access to augmentation options. (2) A bioinductive collagen implant (BCI) is the most preferred form of augmentation for PTT (52.5% of respondents), while both the BCI (45.5%) and human dermal allograft augmentation (45%) are most preferred for FTT.(3) The decision to use augmentation is largely based on positive clinical outcomes (9.4/10) and a defined target patient population (8.4/10), with the most critical outcome being a lower retear rate for both PTT (7/10) and FTT (8/10). (4) For PTT, patient comorbidities (7/10) are of greatest concern and are the most impactful criteria for the decision to use augmentation (6/10). For FTT, poor tendon quality (8.6/10) and increasing tear size (2.9-9.1/10) are of greatest concern, with tear size indicated as the most impactful criteria for selecting augmentation (7.6/10). Conclusion: This expert-opinion survey confirmed the growing popularity of RCR augmentation and the significant limitations in access faced by surgeons and their patients. BCI and human dermal allograft were the most popular augmentation options. Surgeons identify multiple factors as important to decision-making for implant use, including positive clinical outcomes, low retear rates, defined patient populations, patient comorbidities, poor tendon quality, and tear size. Research in this area continues to expand, but additional work on payor approval remains to ensure appropriate access to this technology.

Indexed as

AdvocacyAugmentationBioinductive collagen implantHuman dermal allograftRotator cuff repairSupplementation

Identifiers

PMID42164752
PMCPMC13185863

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.