Acellular Dermal Allograft and Tensor Fascia Lata Autograft Show Similar Patient Outcome Improvement and High Rates of Complications and Failures at a Minimum 2‐Year Follow‐Up: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare clinical and radiologic outcomes following superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) using dermal allograft versus tensor fascia lata (TFL) autograft for massive rotator cuff tears with a minimum 2-year follow-up. METHODS: A literature search was performed by querying Scopus, EMBASE, and PubMed computerized databases from database inception through September 2022 in accordance with the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies evaluating clinical and radiologic outcomes, as well as complications following SCR for the treatment of massive rotator cuff tears were included. Study quality was assessed via the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment. The mean change from preoperative to postoperative values (delta) was calculated for each outcome. RESULTS: Seventeen studies, consisting of 519 patients were identified. Mean duration of follow-up ranged from 24 to 60 months. Mean reduction in visual analog scale pain score ranged from 2.9 to 5.9 points following use of dermal allograft, and 3.4 to 7.0 points following TFL autograft reconstruction. Mean improvements in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score were similar between groups (dermal allograft: 28.0-61.6; TFL autograft: 24.7-59.3). The mean increase in forward flexion ranged from 31° to 38° with dermal allograft, versus 19° to 69° with TFL autograft. Average improvement in active external rotation with dermal allograft ranged from -0.4° to 11° and from 2° to 22.4° using TFL autograft. A similar change in acromiohumeral distance following SCR (dermal allograft: 0.9-3.2 mm; TFL autograft: 0.3-3.6 mm) was appreciated. The rate of complications within the dermal allograft group ranged from 4.5% to 38.2% versus 13.3% to 86.4% following TFL autograft. Failure rate ranged from 4.5 to 38.2% following dermal allograft versus 4.5 to 86.4% with TFL autograft. CONCLUSIONS: Acellular dermal allograft versus TFL autograft for SCR both demonstrate improved VAS and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores, with increased values in flexion and external rotation, and increased visual analog scale, although with high variability. Both grafts demonstrate high rates of complications and failures at minimum 2-year follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV; systematic review of level II-IV studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".