ReviewJournal of experimental orthopaedics2026
The role of new synthetic membranes in rotator cuff augmentation.
Review in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The role of new synthetic membranes in rotator cuff augmentation.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Review
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
Rotator cuff tears (RCTs) are a highly prevalent source of pain and disability. Despite advances in surgical repair techniques, high retear rates remain concerning. Biological augmentation using synthetic membranes has emerged as a promising strategy to enhance tendon regeneration and reduce the risk of repair failure. The purpose of this study is to present the currently available evidence regarding new bioinductive membranes. A narrative review of the literature was performed to identify commercially available bioinductive membranes for rotator cuff augmentation and to summarize the evidence supporting their use. Currently, there are four implants commercially available: Regeneten® (Smith & Nephew, Biobrace® (Conmed), Tapestry® (Zimmer Biomet) and Integrity® (Anika Therapeutics). These scaffolds act as bioinductive matrices, promoting new tendon-like tissue formation, intending to support the healing process and enhance the quality of the degenerative tendon, and reducing the risk of both failures at the tendon-to-bone interface and the occurrence of medial retears adjacent to the repair construct. All devices can be placed arthroscopically, although their fixation methods differ. Regeneten® has the most robust published evidence, whereas data on Biobrace® and Integrity® evidence remain limited, and no published outcomes are available for Tapestry®. Although complications are uncommon, cases of stiffness, inflammation and implant migration have been reported. Biologic augmentation with the new synthetic membranes is a promising technology that requires further attention. The use of the Regeneten implant seems to provide functional improvements in patients with partial tears and helps to avoid retears in full-thickness RCTs. The evidence for the other membranes is limited at best today. Level of Evidence: Level V, expert opinion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.