MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W14899397 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.9210.ebo181

Surgery Was Superior to Physiotherapy for Small and Medium-Size Rotator Cuff Tears

2010· letter· en· W14899397 on OpenAlexaff
Stefan Moosmayer, G Lund, Unni S. Seljom, Ida Svege, Therese Hennig, Rimsha Tariq, HJ Smith, Robin R. Richards

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2010
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRotator cuffTearsMedicineSurgeryCuffPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Question: In patients with small or medium-size rotator cuff tears, how do surgery and physiotherapy compare? Design: Randomized (allocation concealed), blinded (outcome assessor) controlled trial with 12-month follow-up. Setting: A hospital in Baerum, Norway. Patients: 103 patients (mean age 60 y, 71 % men) with small (<1 cm) or medium-size (1 to 3 cm) tears of the rotator cuff. Inclusion criteria were lateral shoulder pain at rest or with exercise, a painful arc of shoulder motion, positive impingement signs, and a passive range of movement of ≥140° for abduction and flexion. Exclusion criteria included age of < 18 years, tears absolutely requiring surgery, concomitant local or systemic diseases affecting shoulder function, previous tendon surgery on the relevant shoulder, and medical comorbid conditions. Follow-up data were available for all patients. Intervention: Patients were allocated to surgery (n = 52) or physiotherapy (n = 51). Surgery involved mini-open oropen tendon repair. Following diagnostic arthroscopy and a deltoid-splitting approach, an anteroinferior acromioplasty was performed. The deltoid was repaired to the acromion through drill-holes. Patients in the physiotherapy group received outpatient treatment by 1 of 4 physiotherapists. 40-minute sessions were given on the average of twice weekly for 12 weeks, and thereafter at increasing intervals during the next 6 to 12 weeks. Exercises to center the humeral head in the glenoid fossa were done to achieve glenohumeral control, and then progressed to more challenging positions. Additional exercises were given, tailored to specific demands in work, sports, and leisure activities. Patients who did not improve after 15 sessions were reassessed and offered surgery if deemed necessary. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was an assessment of shoulder function with use of the Constant score (range, 0 to 100; higher scores represent better function). Secondary outcomes included the self-report section of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score (range, 0 to 100); the Short Form (SF)-36 (0 to 100 points; higher scores indicate better health condition); Constant subscores on pain-free active shoulder abduction, pain-free active shoulder flexion, and shoulder strength; and ASES subscore on shoulder pain. Main results: Analysis was by intention to treat. 9 patients (18%) in the physiotherapy group showed no improvement after a mean of 24 sessions and underwent secondary surgical treatment. Missing nonoperative follow-up data of these patients after secondary surgical treatment were handled by a last-observation-carried-forward principle, meaning that the last scoring result before secondary surgical treatment was used for analysis. Differences between the surgery and physiotherapy groups on the Constant and ASES scores showed greater improvement from baseline in the surgery group than in the physiotherapy group (Table). Among the subscores, the surgery group patients had larger increases in shoulder abduction and decreases in pain; groups did not differ with regard to shoulder flexion or shoulder strength (Table). The groups were not different with regard to SF-36 scores. Conclusion: In patients with small or medium-size rotator cuff tears, 1-year outcomes were better after surgery than after physiotherapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint SurgerySame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207