ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Partial repair versus superior capsular reconstruction: comparable mid-term outcomes in non-pseudoparalytic massive irreparable rotator cuff tears.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
HYPOTHESIS/
backgroundBoth partial rotator cuff repair (PRCR) and superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) are frequently performed arthroscopically to treat non-pseudoparalytic massive irreparable rotator cuff tears (MIRCT). The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of PRCR and superior capsular reconstruction using tensor fascia latae autografts (SCRTF) in the treatment of non-pseudoparalytic MIRCT. The hypothesis was that both techniques would yield improved postoperative clinical and radiological outcomes with no significant difference between techniques.
methodsThis retrospective comparative study included 40 patients (20 PRCR, 20 SCRTF) operated between 2017-2021. All patients were non-pseudoparalytic with at Goutallier grade 3 or greater fatty degeneration. Exclusion criteria were glenohumeral arthritis, cuff tear arthropathy, and pseudoparalysis. Clinical outcomes were assessed with VAS, ASES, and qDASH scores. Radiologic evaluation included measurement of the acromiohumeral distance (AHD). Pre- and postoperative values were compared within and between groups at a minimum of 32 months of follow-up.
resultsBoth groups demonstrated significant postoperative improvements in VAS, ASES, qDASH, and AHD compared with baseline (p<0.001). However, no statistically significant differences were observed between PRCR and SCRTF in clinical or radiological outcomes (p>0.05). Complications occurred in 3 patients (15%) in the SCRTF group (2 graft-site hematomas, one muscle herniation), whereas no complications were reported in the PRCR group; this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.23).
conclusionBoth PRCR and SCRTF provide satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes in the treatment of non-pseudoparalytic MIRCT. While SCRTF carries a risk of graft-related complications, the overall effectiveness of both techniques appears comparable. For this reason, there might be no necessity to perform SCRTF in the treatment of non-pseudoparalytic MIRCT. Careful patient selection remains critical in optimizing outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective 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.