Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

The Evolution of Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair

Dey Hazra RO., Ernat JJ., Rakowski DR., Boykin RE., Millett PJ.

Narrative Review on Rotator Cuff, published in Orthop J Sports Med (2021) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • 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
Narrative Review
Journal
Orthop J Sports Med (2021)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
34901288
PMCID
PMC8652190
DOI
10.1177/23259671211050899
Citations
48

Abstract (original English)

Over the past 30 years, arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) has evolved to become the gold standard in treating rotator cuff pathology. As procedural concepts of ARCR continue to improve, it is also continually compared with the open rotator cuff repair as the historical standard of care. This review highlights the evolution of ARCR, including a historical perspective; the anatomic, clinical, and surgical implications of the development of an arthroscopic approach; how arthroscopy improved some of the problems of the open approach; adaptations in techniques and technologies associated with ARCR; future perspectives in orthobiologics as they pertain to ARCR; and lastly, the clinical improvements, or lack of improvements, with all of these adaptations.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

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

Related research