Comparison of Implant Type, Number and Cost, Suture Number, Surgical Time, Clinical Outcomes of Arthroscopic Double-Pulley Suture-Bridge and Single-Row in Repair Supraspinatus Tendon Tears: A Novel Suture-Bridge Technique.

Peiguan Huang, Xiaoxu Wang, Yong Fu, Zhengmao Li, Bin Peng, Chunrong He

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 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

6 authors.

Peiguan HuangDepartment of Joint Surgery, Hengyang Medical School, The Second Affiliated Hospital, University of South China, Hengyang, 421001 Hunan China.

Xiaoxu WangDepartment of Joint Surgery, Hengyang Medical School, The Second Affiliated Hospital, University of South China, Hengyang, 421001 Hunan China.

Yong FuDepartment of Joint Surgery, Hengyang Medical School, The Second Affiliated Hospital, University of South China, Hengyang, 421001 Hunan China.

Zhengmao LiDepartment of Joint Surgery, Hengyang Medical School, The Second Affiliated Hospital, University of South China, Hengyang, 421001 Hunan China.

Bin PengDepartment of Joint Surgery, Hengyang Medical School, The Second Affiliated Hospital, University of South China, Hengyang, 421001 Hunan China.

Chunrong HeDepartment of Joint Surgery, Hengyang Medical School, The Second Affiliated Hospital, University of South China, Hengyang, 421001 Hunan China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To compare implant type, number and cost, suture number, surgical time, and clinical outcomes between arthroscopic supraspinatus tendon repair using double-pulley suture-bridge (DPSB) and single-row (SR). Methods: From December 2016 to August 2022, 87 patients who underwent arthroscopic repair of supraspinatus tendon with either DPSB ( Results: Suture anchors were the sole implant used in DPSB and SR groups; the surgical costs of DPSB group ($1092) and SR group ($1080) were of no significant difference; the implant cost, the suture number, and the surgical time were of no significant difference. At 24 months of follow-up, VAS, ASES, and UCLA scores and ROM were statistically improved in both groups; however, there were statistical differences between both groups in clinical outcomes of VAS, ASES, UCLA scores and forward flexion, abduction, and internal rotation. On the follow-up of MRI or ultrasound, the overall re-tear rate was 15.6% in DPSB group and 27.2% in SR group at 6 months postoperatively. Conclusions: DPSB is a novel surgical technique of suture-bridge. Suture anchors were the sole implant used in DPSB and SR groups; DPSB and SR groups achieved comparable implant number and cost, surgical time, and suture number; however, the clinical outcomes of DPSB group were significantly better than SR group, and the re-tear rate of DPSB group was lower than SR group. Level of evidence: Level III, retrospective control study. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-025-01645-6.

Indexed as

Clinical outcomesDouble-pulley suture-bridgeImplant typeNumber and cost

Identifiers

PMID42483256

DOI10.1007/s43465-025-01645-6

PMCPMC13385317

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.