Arthroscopic versus mini‐open rotator cuff repair: A cohort comparison study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To critically compare arthroscopic and mini-open rotator cuff repair. TYPE OF STUDY: Retrospective case control study. METHODS: Nine patients who had an arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) were matched for age, gender, dominance, side of injury, history of trauma, duration of symptoms, and type of rotator cuff injury, with 12 patients who had a mini-open rotator cuff repair (MOR). Comparison included a preoperative and postoperative physical examination as well as a completed Simple Shoulder Test (SST) questionnaire at the latest follow-up at a minimum of 27 months. RESULTS: Both groups had significant reductions in pain scores (P < .01) and there was no significant difference in preoperative or postoperative active flexion or external rotation between both groups (P > .20). Although the ARCR group showed a significant improvement in strength (P < .01) and the MOR group did not, no patient had less than 4/5 strength. The impingement sign remained positive in 1 MOR patient, but all patients had a negative Jobe's test result. Pain and Tasks assessment by SST questionnaire showed that neither group had night pain or discomfort when using their arms overhead. There were no significant differences in the overall SST scores between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Because all patients in each group were satisfied with the procedure and there were no objective differences in outcome, we conclude that there is no difference in outcome between ARCR and MOR. Thus, the choice of one approach over the other is best based on surgeon or patient preference. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Retrospective Case Control Study.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".