Arthroscopic double‐row repair of the rotator cuff: a comparison of bio‐absorbable and non‐resorbable anchors regarding osseous reaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyse the osseous reaction after arthroscopic double-row rotator cuff repair using bio-absorbable poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) and non-absorbable polyetheretherketone (PEEK) suture anchors. Focus of interest was the appearance of peri-implant fluid and anchor tunnel widening. METHODS: Thirty-six patients were evaluated at final follow-up (16 PLLA and 20 PEEK). Clinical results were acquired by use of the subjective shoulder value, the Constant score and the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index. Radiological results were analysed by supraspinatus tendon integrity, footprint coverage, muscular atrophy and fatty infiltration. Furthermore, anchor tunnel expansion was measured, anchor structure and peri-implant fluids graduated. RESULTS: At 28.4 ± 8.9-month follow-up, clinical outcome was similar (n.s.). MRI investigation revealed osseous reaction in both groups; tunnel widening was 0.9 ± 0.7 mm in PLLA and 0.8 ± 0.6 mm in PEEK anchors (n.s.). Peri-implant fluid was pronounced in PLLA anchors (p < 0.05). Tunnel widening was significantly higher in lateral anchors irrespectively of the material used. Tendon integrity, muscular atrophy, fatty infiltration and footprint coverage were not significantly different (n.s.). CONCLUSION: Both materials lead to osseous reaction in this study, whereas consequences of pronounced fluid in PLLA patients remain unclear. Pronounced tunnel widening in lateral anchors leads to the assumption that other causes such as mechanical stress potentially have to be considered when analysing osseous reaction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".