Medial Rotator Cuff Failure After Arthroscopic Double‐Row Rotator Cuff Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Persistent tendon defects after rotator cuff repair are not uncommon. Recently, the senior author has identified a subset of 5 patients (mean age, 52 years; range, 42 to 59 years) after arthroscopic double-row rotator cuff repair who showed an unusual mechanism of tendon failure. In these patients the tendon footprint appears well fixed to the greater tuberosity with normal thickness. However, medial to the intact footprint, the tendon is torn with full-thickness defects through the rotator cuff. All patients were involved in Workers' Compensation claims. Magnetic resonance arthrography showed an intact cuff footprint but dye leakage in all patients. Revision surgery was performed at a mean of 8.6 months after the index procedure and showed an intact rotator cuff footprint but cuff failure medial to the footprint. Four patients had repair of the defects by tendon-to-tendon side-to-side sutures, whereas one did not undergo repair. Medial-row failure of the rotator cuff is a previously unreported mechanism of failure after double-row rotator cuff repair. Given the small number of patients in this study, it is unclear whether these defects are symptomatic. However, repair of these defects resulted in improvement in pain in 4 of 5 patients.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".