Arthroscopic repair of partial rotator cuff tears: a minimum 2‐year follow‐up (SS‐80)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to report our experience with arthroscopic repair of partial rotator cuff tears with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. Type of Study: Retrospective cohort. Methods: A retrospective chart review identified all patients who had an arthroscopic repair of a partial rotator cuff tear performed more than two years ago. Repair was done by one of four techniques: trans-tendon, side-to-side, completion of tear and side-to-side, or completion of tear and anchor repair. All patients completed a UCLA Shoulder Score and Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) Score questionnaire. Results: 33 of 48 patients identified were available for our study. We had 91% good and excellent results by the UCLA Shoulder Score and 85% good and excellent results by the WORC Score. There was no statistical difference in outcome scores taking into account repair technique, tear classification, comorbidity, or postoperative stiffness. 36% of the patients experienced postoperative stiffness. Conclusions: Repair of significant partial rotator cuff tears yielded excellent results irrespective of the tear classification or repair technique. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to report our experience with arthroscopic repair of partial rotator cuff tears with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. Type of Study: Retrospective cohort. Methods: A retrospective chart review identified all patients who had an arthroscopic repair of a partial rotator cuff tear performed more than two years ago. Repair was done by one of four techniques: trans-tendon, side-to-side, completion of tear and side-to-side, or completion of tear and anchor repair. All patients completed a UCLA Shoulder Score and Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) Score questionnaire. Results: 33 of 48 patients identified were available for our study. We had 91% good and excellent results by the UCLA Shoulder Score and 85% good and excellent results by the WORC Score. There was no statistical difference in outcome scores taking into account repair technique, tear classification, comorbidity, or postoperative stiffness. 36% of the patients experienced postoperative stiffness. Conclusions: Repair of significant partial rotator cuff tears yielded excellent results irrespective of the tear classification or repair technique.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".