Factors Contributing to Failure of Rotator Cuff Surgery in Persons with Work-Related Injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Shoulder pain is a major musculoskeletal and economic concern in industrialized countries, with the rate of surgical failure reportedly higher in patients injured at work. The purposes of this study were (1) to examine the prevalence of identifiable causes of rotator cuff surgery failure and (2) to examine the relationship among the existence of these causes and outcome scores, patient expectations, and overall satisfaction. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of patients who experienced continued impairments following surgical treatment for work-related injuries. The primary outcome was a disease-specific measure, the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) index. Patients were categorized into two groups based on the existence of an identifiable reason for surgical failure vs. no reason for failure, as demonstrated by clinical and radiologic investigations and decided upon by a shoulder surgeon and a physical therapist. Analyses included a t-test for independent sample means, linear regression, non-parametric Wilcoxon test, and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Thirty-eight consecutive patients were included in the study, and 24 causes of surgical failure were identified in 19 patients (50%). Overall, patients with findings of failure were more disabled according to the total WORC index and had higher levels of symptoms, emotional difficulties, and limitations in sports and recreational activities. Expectations and satisfaction levels were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that 50% of patients who reported failed surgery had at least one reason to explain their ongoing symptoms, emotional difficulties, and functional limitations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".