ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2026
Rotator Cuff Reconstruction Using Biceps Tendon Autograft Versus Acellular Dermal Allograft: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Clinical Outcomes.
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: Massive rotator cuff tears impose a challenge in shoulder surgery because of high failure rates and poor tendon healing. Augmentation using biological grafts emerged as a solution to enhance surgical outcomes; they provide structural reinforcement, while biceps tendon autografts offer native biological integration. The comparative effectiveness of these 2 techniques remains unclear. Hypothesis/Purpose: We hypothesized that both techniques would provide comparable clinical outcomes, but differences may exist in graft integrity and complication rates. The purpose was to evaluate clinical outcomes, functional improvement, and graft healing rates after rotator cuff repair using human dermal (HD) allograft versus biceps tendon autograft augmentation. Study Design: Meta-analysis and systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies were identified through a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies comparing HD allografts and biceps tendon autografts for rotator cuff repair were included. Outcome measures included the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, visual analog scale (VAS), range of motion (ROM), acromiohumeral distance (AHD), and retear rates. A random-effects model was used to analyze pooled data, and heterogeneity was assessed using the Results: Seventeen observational studies involving 613 patients were included, comparing long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) autograft (n = 322) and acellular HD allograft (n = 291). Both techniques demonstrated substantial improvements across functional, pain, and radiological outcomes. For functional recovery, the pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) in ASES scores was higher in the LHBT autograft group (SMD, 2.35 [1.63 to 3.07]) compared with the HD allograft group (SMD, 1.65 [1.40 to 1.90]). However, subgroup differences were not statistically significant ( Conclusion: Both LHBT autograft and acellular HD allograft augmentation for massive rotator cuff repair showed improvements in function, pain, ROM, and AHD, with comparable retear rates. Despite heterogeneity among studies, HD allograft procedures appear to yield predictable clinical outcomes, although comparisons with the unaugmented rotator cuff repair literature remain necessary.
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.