Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceMeta-analysisEurope PMCOpen access

Evaluation of patches for rotator cuff repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on animal studies

Yang J., Kang Y., Zhao W., Jiang J., Jiang Y., Zhao B.

Meta-analysis on Rotator Cuff, published in Bioact Mater (2022) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceEvidence level of this study

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Meta-analysis
Journal
Bioact Mater (2022)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
34901561
PMCID
PMC8633530
DOI
10.1016/j.bioactmat.2021.08.016
Citations
21

Abstract (original English)

Based on the published animal studies, we systematically evaluated the outcomes of various materials for rotator cuff repair in animal models and the potentials of their clinical translation. 74 animal studies were finally included, of which naturally derived biomaterials were applied the most widely (50.0%), rats were the most commonly used animal model (47.0%), and autologous tissue demonstrated the best outcomes in all animal models. The biomechanical properties of naturally derived biomaterials (maximum failure load: WMD 18.68 [95%CI 7.71-29.66]; P = 0.001, and stiffness: WMD 1.30 [95%CI 0.01-2.60]; P = 0.048) was statistically significant in the rabbit model. The rabbit model showed better outcomes even though the injury was severer compared with the rat model.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research