FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1990505473> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1990505473 endingPage "1569" @default.
• W1990505473 startingPage "1568" @default.
• W1990505473 abstract "We read with great interest the Level V Evidence article by two of the great surgeons who advance shoulder arthroscopic surgery.1Burkhart S.S. Cole B.J. Bridging self-reinforcing double-row rotator cuff repair: We really are doing better.Arthroscopy. 2010; 26: 677-680Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (42) Google Scholar We pondered for many months whether to verbalize our thoughts. In the end, we have to confess: we are guilty. We did perform, to our knowledge, the first randomized controlled trial (RCT)2Franceschi F. Ruzzini L. Longo U.G. et al.Equivalent clinical results of arthroscopic single-row and double-row suture anchor repair for rotator cuff tears: A randomized controlled trial.Am J Sports Med. 2007; 35: 1254-1260Crossref PubMed Scopus (338) Google Scholar comparing the clinical and imaging outcome after single- and double-row repair of large and massive rotator cuff tears. Given the time required to perform an RCT, it is not surprising that we used a “first-generation technique” described and used by at least one of them at the time when the trial was planned.3Lo I.K. Burkhart S.S. Double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: Re-establishing the footprint of the rotator cuff.Arthroscopy. 2003; 19: 1035-1042Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (268) Google ScholarIn our hands, single- and double-row techniques provide similar clinical outcomes. Double-row techniques do produce a mechanically superior construct in restoring the anatomic footprint of the rotator cuff, but these mechanical advantages do not translate into superior clinical performance.Our technical skills evolve, together with a better understanding of the biomechanics and biology of tendon-to-bone healing. Indeed, we ourselves understood this and have since described new techniques for double-row repair.4Franceschi F. Longo U.G. Ruzzini L. Rizzello G. Maffulli N. Denaro V. The Roman bridge: A “double pulley–suture bridges” technique for rotator cuff repair.BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007; 8: 123Crossref PubMed Scopus (68) Google Scholar However, with the technique used at that time, and using the most sensitive way to assess integrity of the repair itself, magnetic resonance arthrography, we could not show superiority of the more technically complicated, more time-consuming, and more expensive construct. The fact that a preliminary power analysis had not been conducted may detract from the study design but not from the conclusions: these are based on sound clinical and statistical tests and were proven to be statistically and, in that context, clinically significant: single- and double-row repairs were clinically equivalent.2Franceschi F. Ruzzini L. Longo U.G. et al.Equivalent clinical results of arthroscopic single-row and double-row suture anchor repair for rotator cuff tears: A randomized controlled trial.Am J Sports Med. 2007; 35: 1254-1260Crossref PubMed Scopus (338) Google Scholar In rotator cuff repair,4Franceschi F. Longo U.G. Ruzzini L. Rizzello G. Maffulli N. Denaro V. The Roman bridge: A “double pulley–suture bridges” technique for rotator cuff repair.BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007; 8: 123Crossref PubMed Scopus (68) Google Scholar, 5Burks R. Study of rotator cuff repair techniques: We really are trying.Arthroscopy. 2010; 26: 1013-1020Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar, 6Franceschi F. Longo U.G. Ruzzini L. Rizzello G. Maffulli N. Denaro V. Soft tissue tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon associated to the Roman Bridge repair.BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008; 9: 78Crossref PubMed Scopus (70) Google Scholar even restoration of integrity at imaging does not necessarily produce better clinical results. In this context, one should rely on the most sensitive imaging tests available: although in Europe ultrasonography is popular, to avoid possible criticisms of subjective interpretation from our North American colleagues, we undertook magnetic resonance arthrography.Everybody becomes very sanguine about their ideas, and it is difficult to maintain equipoise. This is the reason why, despite deep-seated convictions, one has to stand back and test hypotheses using Level I Evidence. It is difficult, time-consuming, and expensive, but it is what we have done and continue to do: a quick search on PubMed will bear witness to it. When we plan RCTs, we make sure that, to prevent the subtle differences in attitude engendered by stating “we wish to test whether procedure A produces better results than procedure B,” we test a null hypothesis of non-superiority of procedure A over procedure B.Like Dr. Burks, we do not have any hidden interests in trying to ascertain what is effective and cost-effective.7Longo U.G. Franceschi F. Spiezia F. Marinozzi A. Maffulli N. Denaro V. The low-profile Roman bridge technique for knotless double-row repair of the rotator cuff.Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2010 Nov 10; ([Epub ahead of print.])Google Scholar We invite researchers to stand back and adopt a healthy skepticism to advance our art and science of arthroscopy and, in general, orthopaedics and sports traumatology. By the way, there is no clinical evidence (and we mean Level I Evidence) that the more modern double-row techniques are clinically superior to the older ones, though mechanically they behave even better! We read with great interest the Level V Evidence article by two of the great surgeons who advance shoulder arthroscopic surgery.1Burkhart S.S. Cole B.J. Bridging self-reinforcing double-row rotator cuff repair: We really are doing better.Arthroscopy. 2010; 26: 677-680Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (42) Google Scholar We pondered for many months whether to verbalize our thoughts. In the end, we have to confess: we are guilty. We did perform, to our knowledge, the first randomized controlled trial (RCT)2Franceschi F. Ruzzini L. Longo U.G. et al.Equivalent clinical results of arthroscopic single-row and double-row suture anchor repair for rotator cuff tears: A randomized controlled trial.Am J Sports Med. 2007; 35: 1254-1260Crossref PubMed Scopus (338) Google Scholar comparing the clinical and imaging outcome after single- and double-row repair of large and massive rotator cuff tears. Given the time required to perform an RCT, it is not surprising that we used a “first-generation technique” described and used by at least one of them at the time when the trial was planned.3Lo I.K. Burkhart S.S. Double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: Re-establishing the footprint of the rotator cuff.Arthroscopy. 2003; 19: 1035-1042Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (268) Google Scholar In our hands, single- and double-row techniques provide similar clinical outcomes. Double-row techniques do produce a mechanically superior construct in restoring the anatomic footprint of the rotator cuff, but these mechanical advantages do not translate into superior clinical performance. Our technical skills evolve, together with a better understanding of the biomechanics and biology of tendon-to-bone healing. Indeed, we ourselves understood this and have since described new techniques for double-row repair.4Franceschi F. Longo U.G. Ruzzini L. Rizzello G. Maffulli N. Denaro V. The Roman bridge: A “double pulley–suture bridges” technique for rotator cuff repair.BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007; 8: 123Crossref PubMed Scopus (68) Google Scholar However, with the technique used at that time, and using the most sensitive way to assess integrity of the repair itself, magnetic resonance arthrography, we could not show superiority of the more technically complicated, more time-consuming, and more expensive construct. The fact that a preliminary power analysis had not been conducted may detract from the study design but not from the conclusions: these are based on sound clinical and statistical tests and were proven to be statistically and, in that context, clinically significant: single- and double-row repairs were clinically equivalent.2Franceschi F. Ruzzini L. Longo U.G. et al.Equivalent clinical results of arthroscopic single-row and double-row suture anchor repair for rotator cuff tears: A randomized controlled trial.Am J Sports Med. 2007; 35: 1254-1260Crossref PubMed Scopus (338) Google Scholar In rotator cuff repair,4Franceschi F. Longo U.G. Ruzzini L. Rizzello G. Maffulli N. Denaro V. The Roman bridge: A “double pulley–suture bridges” technique for rotator cuff repair.BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007; 8: 123Crossref PubMed Scopus (68) Google Scholar, 5Burks R. Study of rotator cuff repair techniques: We really are trying.Arthroscopy. 2010; 26: 1013-1020Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar, 6Franceschi F. Longo U.G. Ruzzini L. Rizzello G. Maffulli N. Denaro V. Soft tissue tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon associated to the Roman Bridge repair.BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008; 9: 78Crossref PubMed Scopus (70) Google Scholar even restoration of integrity at imaging does not necessarily produce better clinical results. In this context, one should rely on the most sensitive imaging tests available: although in Europe ultrasonography is popular, to avoid possible criticisms of subjective interpretation from our North American colleagues, we undertook magnetic resonance arthrography. Everybody becomes very sanguine about their ideas, and it is difficult to maintain equipoise. This is the reason why, despite deep-seated convictions, one has to stand back and test hypotheses using Level I Evidence. It is difficult, time-consuming, and expensive, but it is what we have done and continue to do: a quick search on PubMed will bear witness to it. When we plan RCTs, we make sure that, to prevent the subtle differences in attitude engendered by stating “we wish to test whether procedure A produces better results than procedure B,” we test a null hypothesis of non-superiority of procedure A over procedure B. Like Dr. Burks, we do not have any hidden interests in trying to ascertain what is effective and cost-effective.7Longo U.G. Franceschi F. Spiezia F. Marinozzi A. Maffulli N. Denaro V. The low-profile Roman bridge technique for knotless double-row repair of the rotator cuff.Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2010 Nov 10; ([Epub ahead of print.])Google Scholar We invite researchers to stand back and adopt a healthy skepticism to advance our art and science of arthroscopy and, in general, orthopaedics and sports traumatology. By the way, there is no clinical evidence (and we mean Level I Evidence) that the more modern double-row techniques are clinically superior to the older ones, though mechanically they behave even better! Bridging Self-Reinforcing Double-Row Rotator Cuff Repair: We Really Are Doing BetterArthroscopyVol. 26Issue 5PreviewSingle-row versus double-row repair of rotator cuff tears is currently a controversial topic. In this Level V article, we articulate why we believe that second-generation double-row repair techniques, which use bridging sutures to link the 2 rows of suture anchors together in a self-reinforcing manner, are producing superior clinical and biomechanical results. Full-Text PDF Author's ReplyArthroscopyVol. 26Issue 12PreviewWe would like to thank Dr. Maffulli and his colleagues for their thoughtful comments in response to our article, “Bridging Self-Reinforcing Double-Row Rotator Cuff Repair: We Really Are Doing Better.”1 For starters, touché! We love the title because it is just what the doctor ordered to fuel and continue this important dialogue. We concur: Maffulli et al. were the first to perform a randomized controlled trial examining the issue of whether clinical outcomes differ between single- and double-row techniques. Full-Text PDF" @default.
• W1990505473 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1990505473 creator A5006094730 @default.
• W1990505473 creator A5024159880 @default.
• W1990505473 creator A5030462654 @default.
• W1990505473 creator A5035737240 @default.
• W1990505473 creator A5080203239 @default.
• W1990505473 date "2010-12-01" @default.
• W1990505473 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W1990505473 title "Clinical Evidence for Suture Anchor Repair of Rotator Cuff Tears Does Add Up: Some Just Do Not Want to See It" @default.
• W1990505473 cites W1964661220 @default.
• W1990505473 cites W1975978127 @default.
• W1990505473 cites W2005694401 @default.
• W1990505473 cites W2023355529 @default.
• W1990505473 cites W2029205668 @default.
• W1990505473 cites W2125174350 @default.
• W1990505473 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2010.10.006" @default.
• W1990505473 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21112475" @default.
• W1990505473 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W1990505473 type Work @default.
• W1990505473 sameAs 1990505473 @default.
• W1990505473 citedByCount "5" @default.
• W1990505473 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1990505473 hasAuthorship W1990505473A5006094730 @default.
• W1990505473 hasAuthorship W1990505473A5024159880 @default.
• W1990505473 hasAuthorship W1990505473A5030462654 @default.
• W1990505473 hasAuthorship W1990505473A5035737240 @default.
• W1990505473 hasAuthorship W1990505473A5080203239 @default.
• W1990505473 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W1990505473 hasConcept C2776030733 @default.
• W1990505473 hasConcept C2776511800 @default.
• W1990505473 hasConcept C2777327002 @default.
• W1990505473 hasConcept C2778275304 @default.
• W1990505473 hasConcept C2779162959 @default.
• W1990505473 hasConcept C2780017030 @default.
• W1990505473 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1990505473 hasConceptScore W1990505473C141071460 @default.
• W1990505473 hasConceptScore W1990505473C2776030733 @default.
• W1990505473 hasConceptScore W1990505473C2776511800 @default.
• W1990505473 hasConceptScore W1990505473C2777327002 @default.
• W1990505473 hasConceptScore W1990505473C2778275304 @default.
• W1990505473 hasConceptScore W1990505473C2779162959 @default.
• W1990505473 hasConceptScore W1990505473C2780017030 @default.
• W1990505473 hasConceptScore W1990505473C71924100 @default.
• W1990505473 hasIssue "12" @default.
• W1990505473 hasLocation W19905054731 @default.
• W1990505473 hasLocation W19905054732 @default.
• W1990505473 hasOpenAccess W1990505473 @default.
• W1990505473 hasPrimaryLocation W19905054731 @default.
• W1990505473 hasRelatedWork W1992883947 @default.
• W1990505473 hasRelatedWork W2008460476 @default.
• W1990505473 hasRelatedWork W2109637767 @default.
• W1990505473 hasRelatedWork W2140174911 @default.
• W1990505473 hasRelatedWork W2350495103 @default.
• W1990505473 hasRelatedWork W2414901100 @default.
• W1990505473 hasRelatedWork W2548387733 @default.
• W1990505473 hasRelatedWork W2793113854 @default.
• W1990505473 hasRelatedWork W3029072863 @default.
• W1990505473 hasRelatedWork W3032442244 @default.
• W1990505473 hasVolume "26" @default.
• W1990505473 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1990505473 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1990505473 magId "1990505473" @default.
• W1990505473 workType "article" @default.