ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2026
Rotator Cuff Repair With Bone Marrow Stimulation Versus Rotator Cuff Repair With Patch Augmentation: A Systematic Review.
Review in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bone marrow stimulation (BMS) and patch augmentation (PA) are 2 adjuncts used during rotator cuff repair (RCR) to support the repair construct and promote healing. Purpose: To systematically review the literature to compare the clinical efficacy and retear rate outcomes of RCR with PA versus RCR with BMS. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A systematic review was conducted by searching the PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase databases to identify Level 1 and 2 studies that compared the clinical efficacy of RCR alone with RCR plus BMS or RCR plus PA. The search phrase used was Results: Twenty studies (Level 1 or 2) met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, including 351 patients undergoing RCR with PA (mean age, 60 years) and 475 patients undergoing RCR with BMS (mean age, 59.9 years). The mean follow-up time was 20.6 months in the PA group and 21.1 months in the BMS group. None of the included studies directly compared PA and BMS, and there were no significant differences in weighted improvements among patient-reported outcomes from pre- to postoperative values between augmentation groups. Patients undergoing RCR with PA demonstrated no significant difference in retear rates at the latest follow-up compared with patients undergoing RCR with BMS. High heterogeneity among the included studies in the augmentation technique and tear grade was noted. Conclusion: Patients undergoing RCR with PA or BMS have demonstrated similar improvements in both patient-reported and functional outcomes. Further randomized controlled studies are needed to directly compare these 2 RCR augmentation groups, as well as compare different patch types and different BMS techniques.
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.