Paper 65: Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with and without acromioplasty in the treatment of full-thickness rotator cuff tears: long term follow-up of a multicenter, randomized controlled trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objectives: In our previous trial of 86 patients randomized to undergo rotator cuff repair with or without acromioplasty, no differences in functional and quality-of-life indices at 24-months post-operative were observed. At that time point, four patients (9%) in the group without acromioplasty required reoperation due to persistent symptoms (1 with a type-II acromion and 3 with type-III acromion) while no patients that underwent acromioplasty had follow-up surgery. This is consistent with other short-term studies; however, no long-term follow-up of a randomized clinical trial has been conducted. The aim of this study was to re-evaluate the patients from the original trial determine the long-term efficacy of performing a subacromial decompression in cases of full thickness rotator cuff tears. Methods: This is a secondary study based on a previous multi-centre, double-blind, balanced randomization (1:1), parallel-group study with patients allocated to arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with (ACR) or without acromioplasty (No ACR). Recruitment for the original study was conducted between June 2003 and February 2009 with 24-month follow-up taking place between 2005 and 2011. This secondary study was conducted between April 2015 and March 2021 with all patients randomized in the main study comprising the study sample. Additional exclusion criteria were those who were unable or unwilling to provide informed consent. Patients from the original study were invited by a blinded assessor to return for a follow-up visit involving the same methodology as their previous visits. The visit included completion of a patient-reported outcome, the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff score (WORC) and clinical assessment. If a participant was unable to return for a clinical evaluation, they were asked to complete the WORC by mail. Results: Eighty-six patients were randomized in the original trial. Fifty-seven of those completed the long-term follow-up, 31 of 45 from the No ACR group and 25 of 41 from the ACR group. Sixty-one percent in the No ACR group and 64% in the ACR group were male. The mean (SD) duration of follow-up was 11.2 (2.4) years for No ACR and 11.5 (2.6) years for ACR, respectively. Mean (SD) age of patients at the time of initial surgery for the No ACR group was 58.5 (8.4) and for the ACR group was 56.2 (7.8), while mean age at the most recent follow-up was 69.0 (9.3) for No ACR and 67.7 (7.7) for ACR. Mean (SD) WORC scores at pre-operative, 24-months and long-term follow-up are presented by group in Table 1. There was no significant difference in WORC between the No ACR and ACR groups at the time of long-term follow-up (p=0.30). WORC score maintained a significant improvement from pre-operative scores in both groups (p < 0.001). In the initial study at 24-months post-operative, four patients were identified in the No ACR group who underwent revision surgery. Of those, 2 returned for long-term follow-up and 2 did not. In long term follow-up, another 6 patients were identified that underwent additional surgery on their study shoulder since the 24-month follow-up, including 3 rotator cuff revisions, 1 total shoulder arthroplasty, and 2 unknown shoulder surgeries (patient-reported). Therefore, 10 (22%) of the 45 patients in the No ACR group underwent further shoulder surgery. One participant, 2% of the initial 41 patients allocated to ACR, underwent a revision shoulder surgery. Conclusions: The main finding of this study was that at long-term (mean 11 years post-operative) follow-up of patients randomized to undergo rotator cuff repair with or without acromioplasty, there was no difference in patient-reported outcome, specifically WORC scores. Both groups maintained improved outcomes from their pre-operative status. However, revision rate was significantly higher in those that did not undergo acromioplasty at the time of their initial surgery. [Figure: see text][Figure: see text]
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Étiquettes directes de modèles (non validées)
Étiquettes de catégorie et de devis d'étude par modèle, issues des rondes d'étiquetage. C'est une sortie machine, non validée, et le désaccord entre modèles est livré comme donnée. Aucun devis ici n'est encore validé contre MEDLINE.
| Bras | Catégories | Devis d'étude | Confiance |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | aucune catégorie Domaine: non disponible · Genre: Empirique Porte sur le système de recherche canadien: non · Porte sur un sujet canadien: non | Essai randomisé | high |
| gpt | aucune catégorie Domaine: non disponible · Genre: Empirique Porte sur le système de recherche canadien: non · Porte sur un sujet canadien: non | Essai randomisé | high |
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,015 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéeÉtiqueté directement par 2 modèles lisant le dossier complet.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».