Calcific Tendinitis of the Rotator Cuff
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Calcific tendinitis of the rotator cuff (RCCT) is frequently diagnosed in patients with shoulder pain, but there is no consensus on its treatment. PURPOSE: To compare 2 regularly applied RCCT treatments: ultrasound (US)-guided needling and lavage (barbotage) combined with a US-guided corticosteroid injection in the subacromial bursa (subacromial bursa injection [SAI]) (group 1) versus an isolated SAI (group 2). STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to the 2 groups. Shoulder function was assessed before treatment and at regular follow-up intervals (6 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months) using the Constant shoulder score (CS, primary outcome), the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC), and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH). Additionally, calcification location, size, and Gärtner classification were assessed on radiographs. Results were analyzed using the t test, linear regression, and a mixed model for repeated measures. RESULTS: This study included 48 patients (25 female, 52.1%; mean age, 52.0 ± 7.3 years; 23 patients in group 1) with a mean baseline CS of 68.7 ± 11.9. No patients were lost to follow-up. Four patients in group 1 and 11 in group 2 (P = .06) had an additional barbotage procedure or surgery during the follow-up period because of persisting symptoms and no resorption. At 1-year follow-up, the mean CS in group 1 was 86.0 (95% CI, 80.3-91.6) versus 73.9 (95% CI, 67.7-80.1) in group 2 (P = .005). The mean calcification size decreased by 11.6 ± 6.4 mm in group 1 and 5.1 ± 5.7 mm in group 2 (P = .001). There was total resorption in 13 patients in group 1 and 6 patients in group 2 (P = .07). With regression analyses, correcting for baseline CS and Gärtner type, the mean treatment effect was 20.5 points (P = .05) in favor of barbotage. Follow-up scores were significantly influenced by baseline scores. Results for the DASH and WORC were similar. CONCLUSION: On average, there was improvement at 1-year follow-up in both treatment groups, but clinical and radiographic results were significantly better in the barbotage group.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".