Functional Outcome and Health-Related Quality of Life after Surgical Repair of Full-Thickness Rotator Cuff Tear Using a Mini-Open Technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rotator cuff tear, a common shoulder injury, can lead to shoulder pain and functional loss. HYPOTHESIS: Surgical repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears using the mini-open surgical technique will improve shoulder function and health-related quality of life. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study. Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: Patients with a full-thickness rotator cuff tear who underwent a mini-open repair were evaluated for (1) active shoulder range of motion preoperatively, and 6 months and 12 months postoperatively and (2) health-related quality of life preoperatively, 6 months postoperatively, and annually up to 5 years postoperatively. Satisfaction with the repair and return to work status were ascertained 1 year postoperatively. A subgroup analysis of tear size and patient age was also undertaken. RESULTS: Of the subjects, 61 (73%) were men, and the average age was 53.2 ( +/- 9.9) years. According to repeated-measures analysis of variance, shoulder range of motion (flexion and external rotation) improved significantly from before surgery to 1 year after surgery (P <.001). The mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores improved from 53.3 ( +/- 20.6) preoperatively to 90.6 ( +/- 11.7) 1 year postoperatively (P <.001). The mean Western Ontario Rotator Cuff scores also improved from 43.2 ( +/- 20.2) preoperatively to 87.2 ( +/- 14.3) 1 year postoperatively (P <.001). No differences were seen in either the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores or Western Ontario Rotator Cuff scores between the 1-year examination and the last follow-up assessment undertaken at a median of 5 years postoperatively (P >.05). Ninety-six percent of patients were satisfied or very satisfied with the results of their repair; 78% of patients who were working before surgery returned to work without modification by 1 year postoperatively. For the most part, patient age and size of tear did not influence postoperative range of motion or health-related quality of life. CONCLUSION: Mini-open rotator cuff repair led to improved shoulder function and health-related quality of life up to 5 years postoperatively.
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 | 0.000 | 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".