Abstract
This commentary raises methodological concerns regarding the study “UltraTape and sutures combination versus conventional sutures in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a 6-month retrospective matched cohort study.” The core issue is the 4-year interval between the UltraTape group (2019–2024) and the suture control group (2015–2018). During this period, advancements in rotator cuff repair (e.g., equipment, anchor design, biological augmentation), updates to rehabilitation protocols, and accumulated surgeon experience could independently influence outcomes. This introduces confounding factors that challenge the purity of the efficacy evaluation for UltraTape.The observed contradictory results in the study may stem from time-dependent variables (e.g., learning curve, technical refinements). More critically, if a technological gap exists between the groups (e.g., early control group potentially using single-row repairs vs. later UltraTape group potentially using double-row repairs or biological augmentation), the observed differences may arise from technological advancements rather than the suture material itself. These limitations warrant cautious interpretation of the findings.