Results of Surgery After Failed Attempt at Repair of Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tear
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twelve patients who had surgery to repair a rotator cuff tear, which could not be repaired because the residual tendon tissue was of poor quality, insufficient, or both, were followed up for a mean of 33 months. At surgery, the deltoid was detached from the acromion for 4 to 6 cm and an acromioplasty was done. Preoperatively, all patients except one had mild to severe pain. The mean active forward flexion, abduction, and external rotation were 75 degrees, 61 degrees, and 22 degrees, respectively. After surgery, of the 11 patients who had shoulder pain preoperatively, 10 reported partial relief of pain and one was pain-free. However, shoulder function deteriorated in 11 patients and remained unchanged in one patient who had a pseudoparalytic shoulder before and after surgery. The mean postoperative values of forward flexion, abduction, and external rotation were 49 degrees, 43 degrees, and 16 degrees, respectively. Only one patient was satisfied with the result of surgery because of pain relief. Two patients had repeat surgery (total shoulder replacement or latissimus dorsi transfer) 6 and 4 months after the index surgery because of unsatisfactory functional results. Attempts at open repair of an irreparable cuff tear should be avoided because functional results generally are poor. When there is a risk that an irreparable tear will be found, open surgery should not be done or alternative procedures should be planned before surgery.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".