Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online 2026
Does graft thickness affect outcomes in massive rotator cuff repairs with on-lay and bridging graft augmentation? A systematic review and meta-analysis
To evaluate whether graft thickness influences functional outcomes and re-tear rates in massive rotator cuff repairs (RCRs) with graft augmentation, and to compare effectiveness of on-lay versus bridging/interposition techniques.
Methods
A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases were searched between April 2006 and April 2025. Clinical studies reporting shoulder-specific functional outcomes scores and re-tear rates evaluating RCRs with graft augmentation (on-lay or bridging) using allografts, xenografts and synthetic grafts, as well as comparative studies with standard repair with minimum 12-months follow-up were included. Studies were stratified by graft thickness (≤2 mm vs >2 mm) and technique (on-lay vs bridging).
Results
Thirty-eight studies (n = 1761; 23 with grafts ≤2 mm, 15 with grafts >2 mm) with a mean follow-up of 34.2 ± 18.6 months were included. On-lay augmentation with grafts ≤2 mm yielded the greatest reduction in re-tear risk (OR 0.15; 95% CI: 0.05–0.49; p = 0.04) and lowest failure rate (8%). Bridging with ≤2 mm grafts reduced re-tear risk by 67% (RR 0.33; 95% CI: 0.20–0.55), while grafts >2 mm reduced risk by 55% (RR 0.45; 95% CI: 0.27–0.74). The pooled re-tear rate was 12% (95% CI: 9–15%). On-lay augmentation with grafts ≤2 mm significantly improved functional outcomes compared with standard repair (mean difference 9.39 points; 95% confidence interval 1.09–17.68; p = 0.03), whereas no significant difference was observed for grafts >2 mm (MD +4.28 points; 95% CI: 0.09–8.46; p = 0.05). Bridging with grafts ≤2 mm demonstrated the highest pooled mean constant scores (76.29; 95% CI: 69.56–83.68).
Conclusion
Both on-lay and bridging augmentation techniques significantly reduced re-tear rates compared with standard repair alone. Grafts ≤2 mm provided a greater reduction in re-tear risk with both techniques and showed a trend towards superior functional outcomes.
AngeloRLEschJRyuRK. In: AngeloRLRyuRKNEschJ (eds) AANA Advanced Arthroscopy: The Shoulder E-Book. Elsevier Health Sciences: Amsterdam, 2010.
2.
WuXLBriggsLMurrellGAC. Intraoperative determinants of rotator cuff repair integrity: an analysis of 500 consecutive repairs. Am J Sports Med2012; 40: 2771–2776.
3.
OnoYDávalos HerreraDAWoodmassJM, et al.Graft augmentation versus bridging for large to massive rotator cuff tears: a systematic review. Arthroscopy2017; 33: 673–680.
4.
BurnierMElhassanBTSanchez-SoteloJ. Surgical management of irreparable rotator cuff tears: what works, what does not, and what is coming. J Bone Joint Surg Am2019; 101: 1603–1612.
5.
JonesCRSnyderSJ. Massive irreparable rotator cuff tears: a solution that bridges the gap. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev2015; 23: 130–138.
6.
MihataTLeeTQWatanabeC, et al.Clinical results of arthroscopic superior capsule reconstruction for irreparable rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy2013; 29: 459–470.
7.
BaldwinMNagraNSGreenallG, et al.Use of implantable meshes for augmented rotator cuff repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open2020; 10: e039552.
8.
GilotGJAttiaAKAlvarezAM. Arthroscopic repair of rotator cuff tears using extracellular matrix graft. Arthrosc Tech2014; 3: e487–e489.
9.
GillespieRJKnapikDMAkkusO. Biologic and synthetic grafts in the reconstruction of large to massive rotator cuff tears. J Am Acad Orthop Surg2016; 24: 823–828.
10.
BarkerTHMigliavacaCBSteinC, et al.Conducting proportional meta-analysis in different types of systematic reviews: a guide for synthesisers of evidence. BMC Med Res Methodol2021; 21: 89.
11.
BadheSPLawrenceTMSmithFD,et al.An assessment of porcine dermal xenograft as an augmentation graft in the treatment of extensive rotator cuff tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2008; 17: S35–S39.
12.
ChoiSKimGLeeY, et al.Patch augmentation does not provide better clinical outcomes than arthroscopic rotator cuff repair for large to massive rotator cuff tears. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc2022; 30: 3851–3861.
13.
DeganTJHartzlerRURahalA, et al.Prospective 1-year outcomes are maintained at short-term final follow-up after superior capsular reconstruction augmentation of complete rotator cuff repair. Arthroscopy2022; 38: 1411–1419.
14.
FluryMRickenbacherDJungC, et al.Porcine dermis patch augmentation of supraspinatus tendon repairs: a pilot study assessing tendon integrity and shoulder function 2 years after arthroscopic repair in patients aged 60 years or older. Arthroscopy2018; 34: 24–37.
15.
GilotGJAlvarez-PinzonAMBarcksdaleL, et al.Outcome of large to massive rotator cuff tears repaired with and without extracellular matrix augmentation: a prospective comparative study. Arthroscopy2015; 31: 1459–1465.
16.
KangHYooSJYangJ, et al.Comparable clinical outcome with greater thickness and lesser re-tear rate following allogenous dermal scaffold augmentation for large to massive rotator cuff tears: a retrospective case-controlled study. J Orthop Surg Res2025; 20: 04.
17.
KantanavarRElLIRheeSM,et al.Outcomes of arthroscopic single-row repair alone vs. Repair with human dermal allograft patch augmentation in patients with large to massive, posterosuperior rotator cuff tears: a retrospective comparative study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2024; 33: 823–831.
18.
KimSHShinSJ. No difference in clinical outcomes following repair of large retracted anterior rotator cuff tears using patch augmentation with human dermal allograft versus anterior cable reconstruction with biceps tendon autograft. Arthroscopy2024; 40: 294–302.
19.
KuechlyHAKurkowskiSCTaleghaniER, et al.Ultrasound and patient-reported outcomes of rotator cuff repair with new acellular human allograft at 6 months and 1 year post surgery. JSES Rev Rep Tech2024; 4: 413–418.
20.
MirzayanRStoneMABatechM, et al.Failed dermal allograft procedures for irreparable rotator cuff tears can still improve pain and function: the “biologic tuberoplasty effect”. Orthop J Sports Med2019; 7: 2325967119863432.
21.
OnoYLeBlancJBoisAJ, et al.Graft healing is more important than graft technique: superior capsular reconstruction versus bridging grafts – a prospective randomized controlled trial. Arthroscopy2022; 38: 3109–3117.
22.
PetriMWarthRJHoranMP, et al.Outcomes after open revision repair of massive rotator cuff tears with biologic patch augmentation. Arthroscopy2016; 32: 1752–1760.
23.
ShinSJLeeSHwangJY, et al.Superior capsular reconstruction using acellular dermal allograft combined with remaining rotator cuff augmentation improved shoulder fain and function at 1 year after the surgery. Arthroscopy2022; 38: 1089–1098.
24.
ThangarajahTTsuchiyaSLukenchukJ,et al.Arthroscopic revision rotator cuff repair of large and massive retears using an interpositional bridging dermal allograft. JSES Int2022; 6: 643–648.
25.
AudenaertEVan NuffelJSchepensA, et al.Reconstruction of massive rotator cuff lesions with a synthetic interposition graft: a prospective study of 41 patients. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc2006; 14: 360–364.
26.
AwadMASparavaloSMaJ, et al.Interposition graft bridging reconstruction of irreparable rotator cuff tears using acellular dermal matrix: medium-term results. Arthroscopy2022; 38: 692–698.
27.
BarberFABurnsJPDeutschA, et al.A prospective, randomized evaluation of acellular human dermal matrix augmentation for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Arthroscopy2012; 28: 8–15.
28.
BurkhardMDDietrichMAndronicO, et al.Arthroscopic repair of posterosuperior rotator cuff tears with bioabsorbable patch augmentation: a magnetic resonance-controlled case series with 1-year follow-up. JSES Int2020; 4: 860–868.
29.
Jr WZBSchiffernSCKrishnanSG. Use of graft jacket as an augmentation for massive rotator cuff tears. Semin Arthroplasty JSES2007; 18: 11–18.
30.
GuptaAKHugKBerkoffDJ, et al.Dermal tissue allograft for the repair of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. Am J Sports Med2012; 40: 141–147.
31.
HaqueAPal SinghHPandeyR. Treatment of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears using dermal allograft bridging reconstruction. J Clin Orthop Trauma2021; 22: 101593.
32.
HohnEAGilletteBPBurnsJP. Outcomes of arthroscopic revision rotator cuff repair with acellular human dermal matrix allograft augmentation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2018; 27: 816–823.
33.
JohnsonSMCherry JVThomasN, et al.Clinical outcomes and ultrasonographic viability of GraftJacket augmented rotator cuff repair: a prospective follow-up study with mean follow-up of forty-one months. J Clin Orthop Trauma2020; 11: S372–S377.
34.
KarpyshynJMaJKingJP,et al.Bridging reconstruction with interpositional dermal allograft has superior healing than does maximal repair for treatment of large to massive, irreparable rotator cuff tears-secondary analysis of a randomized control trial. Arthroscopy2025; 41: 903–913.
35.
LedermanESTothAPNicholsonGP, et al.A prospective, multicenter study to evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes in primary rotator cuff repair reinforced with a xenograft dermal matrix. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2016; 25: 1961–1970.
36.
LeeGWKimJYLeeHW, et al.Clinical and anatomical outcomes of arthroscopic repair of large rotator cuff tears with allograft patch augmentation: a prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial with a long-term follow-up. Clin Orthop Surg2022; 14: 263–271.
37.
MerollaGBonfattiRMarraF, et al.Human dermal allograft augmentation in primary and revision arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a retrospective controlled study including patient outcomes and ultrasound evaluation of tendon healing. Int Orthop2025; 49: 1427–1438.
38.
ModiAHaqueADeoreV, et al.Interposition GraftJacket allografts for irreparable rotator cuff tears. Bone Joint J2022; 104-B: 91–96.
39.
NamdariSNicholsonTBrolinTJ, et al.Healing and functional results of dermal allograft augmentation of complex and revision rotator cuff repairs. Am J Sports Med2021; 49: 2042–2047.
40.
NeumannJAZgonisMHRickertKD, et al.Interposition dermal matrix xenografts: a successful alternative to traditional treatment of massive rotator cuff tears. Am J Sports Med2017; 45: 1261–1268.
41.
ProctorCS. Long-term successful arthroscopic repair of large and massive rotator cuff tears with a functional and degradable reinforcement device. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2014; 23: 1508–1513.
42.
RaneboMCBjornsson HallgrenHCNorlinR,et al.Long-term clinical and radiographic outcome of rotator cuff repair with a synthetic interposition graft: a consecutive case series with 17 to 20 years of follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2018; 27: 1622–1628.
43.
SeetharamAAbadJBaesslerA,et al.Use of a nanofiber resorbable scaffold during rotator cuff repair: surgical technique and results after repair of small- to medium-sized tears. Orthop J Sports Med2022; 10: 23259671221094848.
44.
SnowMKuiperJHJamesS, et al.A pilot randomised controlled trial assessing standard versus dermal patch-augmented rotator cuff repair found no adverse effects and suggest future trials need a minimum of 150 patients. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc2023; 31: 2654–2661.
45.
TingRSLohYCRosenthalR, et al.Revision rotator cuff repair with versus without an arthroscopically inserted onlay bioinductive implant in workers’ compensation patients. Orthop J Sports Med2023; 11: 23259671231175883.
46.
VenouziouAIKokkalisZTSotereanosDG. Human dermal allograft interposition for the reconstruction of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ)2013; 42: 63–70.
WongISparavaloSKingJP,et al.Bridging allograft reconstruction is superior to maximal repair for the treatment of chronic, massive rotator cuff tears: results of a prospective, randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med2021; 49: 3173–3183.
49.
OzakiJFujimotoSMasuharaK, et al.Reconstruction of chronic massive rotator cuff tears with synthetic materials. Clin Orthop1986; 202: 173–183.
50.
WarnerJJParsonsIV. Lattisimus dorsi tendon transfer: a comparative analysis of primary and salvage reconstruction of massive, irreparable rotator cuff tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2001; 10: 514–521.
51.
DenardPJBradyPCAdamsCR, et al.Preliminary results of arthroscopic superior capsule reconstruction with dermal allograft. Arthroscopy2018; 34: 93–99.
52.
LinJSunYChenQ, et al.Outcome comparison of graft bridging and superior capsule reconstruction for large to massive rotator cuff tears: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med2020; 48: 2828–2838.
53.
HaqueAPal SinghH. Does structural integrity following rotator cuff repair affect functional outcomes and pain scores? A meta-analysis. Shoulder Elbow2018; 10: 163–169.
54.
WeissDLKamdarPCirinoCM. Rotator cuff repair augmentation: a review of current techniques. Ann Jt2025; 10: 28.
55.
AkhtarARichardsJMongaP. The biomechanics of the rotator cuff in health and disease – a narrative review. J Clin Orthop Trauma2021; 18: 150–156.
56.
de AndradeALLGarciaTAde Sancti BrandãoH, et al.Benefits of patch augmentation on rotator cuff repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthop J Sports Med2022; 10: 23259671211071146.
OhJHParkJSRheeSM,et al.Maximum bridging suture tension provides better clinical outcomes in transosseous-equivalent rotator cuff repair: a clinical, prospective randomized comparative study. Am J Sports Med2020; 48: 2129–2136.
59.
ImaiS. Functional improvements by controlled suture tension in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. JB JS Open Access2025; 10: e2400031.
60.
MandaliaKMousadAWelbornB, et al.Scaffold- and graft-based biological augmentation of rotator cuff repair: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical and clinical studies for 2010-2022. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2023; 32: 1784–1800.
61.
SharmaNEl RefaiyASiblyTF. Short-term results of rotator cuff repair using GraftJacket as an interpositional tissue-matched thickness graft. J Orthop2018; 15: 732–735.
62.
LeeWYChoHHJeonYS, et al.Comparison of clinical and biomechanical results of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using conventional and triple-row suture-bridge techniques. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong)2025; 33: 10225536251364198.
63.
CuffDJPupelloDRSantoniBG. Partial rotator cuff repair and biceps tenotomy for the treatment of patients with massive cuff tears and retained overhead elevation: mid-term outcomes with a minimum 5 years of follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2016; 25: 1803–1809.
64.
ErnstbrunnerLSuterACatanzaroS, et al.Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for massive, irreparable rotator cuff tears before the age of 60 years: long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Am2017; 99: 1721–1729.
65.
HartzlerRUSteenBMHusseyMM, et al.Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for massive rotator cuff tear: risk factors for poor functional improvement. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2015; 24: 1698–1706.
66.
BlackEMRobertsSMSiegelE, et al.Failure after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: what is the success of component revision?J Shoulder Elbow Surg2015; 24: 1908–1914.
67.
NeviaserJSNeviaserRJNeviaserTJ. The repair of chronic massive ruptures of the rotator cuff of the shoulder by use of a freeze-dried rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Am1978; 60: 681–684.
