A Prospective, Randomized Evaluation of Acellular Human Dermal Matrix Augmentation for Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate the safety and effectiveness of arthroscopic acellular human dermal matrix augmentation of large rotator cuff tear repairs. METHODS: A prospective, institutional review board-approved, multicenter series of patients undergoing arthroscopic repair of 2-tendon rotator cuff tears measuring greater than 3 cm were randomized by sealed envelopes opened at the time of surgery to arthroscopic single-row rotator cuff repair with GraftJacket acellular human dermal matrix (Wright Medical Technology, Arlington, TN) augmentation (group 1) or without augmentation (group 2). Preoperative and postoperative functional outcome assessments were obtained by use of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Constant, and University of California, Los Angeles scales. Gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation of these repairs was obtained at a mean of 14.5 months (range, 12 to 24 months). Adverse events were recorded. RESULTS: There were 22 patients in group 1 and 20 in group 2 with a mean age of 56 years. The mean follow-up was 24 months (range, 12 to 38 months). The ASES score improved from 48.5 to 98.9 in group 1 and from 46.0 to 94.8 in group 2. The scores in group 1 were statistically better than those in group 2 (P = .035). The Constant score improved from 41.0 to 91.9 in group 1 and from 45.8 to 85.3 in group 2. The scores in group 1 were statistically better than those in group 2 (P = .008). The University of California, Los Angeles score improved from 13.3 to 28.2 in group 1 and from 15.9 to 28.3 in group 2 (P = .43). Gadolinium-enhanced MRI scans showed intact cuffs in 85% of repairs in group 1 and 40% in group 2 (P < .01). No adverse events were attributed to the presence of the matrix grafts. CONCLUSIONS: Acellular human dermal matrix augmentation of large (>3 cm) cuff tears involving 2 tendons showed better ASES and Constant scores and more frequent intact cuffs as determined by gadolinium-enhanced MRI. Intact repairs were found in 85% of the augmented group and 40% of the nonaugmented group (P < .01). No adverse events related to the acellular human dermal matrix were observed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, lesser-quality randomized controlled trial.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".