ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Single-row suture repair combined with tension-reducing augmentation versus double-row suture bridge repair for medium-to-large u-shaped supraspinatus tears: a retrospective cohort study with 2-year follow-up.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA U-shaped tear of the supraspinatus tendon is a common subtype of medium‑to‑large rotator cuff tears in clinical practice. Double‑row suture bridge (DRS‑B) repair is widely used for such tears and yields favorable clinical outcomes, while DRS‑B is associated with greater surgical complexity and potential complications.Single-row suture with transosseous lateral reinforcement(SRS‑TR) represents an emerging alternative designed to simplify fixation. The present study was performed to compare SRS‑TR with DRS‑B for the treatment of medium‑to‑large U‑shaped tears of the supraspinatus tendon.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted on medium-to-large (maximal width: 2-5 cm) U-shaped supraspinatus tears patients who were randomly selected to fix with either the SRS-TRor the DRS-B between January 2020 and January 2025. The primary endpoints and evaluation indicators included intraoperative anchor usage, acromiohumeral distance (AHD), length of hospital stay, follow-up duration, postoperative shoulder range of motion (ROM), visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, UCLA Shoulder Rating Scale score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, patient-reported surgical satisfaction, tendon integrity, and retear rate.
resultsThe SRS-TR group exhibited significantly shorter operative time (mean difference: -49.6 min, P = 0.033), lower anchor usage (mean: 3 vs. 4 anchors, P < 0.001), and a reduced incidence of intraoperative anchor revision (0% vs. 13.3%, P = 0.038) compared with the DRS-B group. AHD was significantly greater in the SRS-TR group both at 3 days postoperatively (mean: 9.91 mm vs. 7.12 mm, P = 0.022) and at final follow-up (mean: 11.81 mm vs. 9.12 mm, P = 0.043). No postoperative complications were observed in either group. There were no statistically significant differences on length of hospital stay, follow-up duration, ROM, VAS, UCLA, ASES, patient-reported surgical satisfaction, and retear rate.
conclusionsAt a mean follow-up of 23.1 months, both groups achieved comparable functional outcomes in patients with medium-to-large U-shaped supraspinatus tears. However, SRS-TR conferred significant procedural advantages-including shorter operative time, reduced anchor burden, lower intraoperative anchor revision rates, and superior maintenance of AHD. These findings support SRS-TR may yield comparable or superior outcomes at intermediate-term follow-up for the treatment of medium-to-large U-shaped supraspinatus tendon tears. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, comparative study.
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.