Outcome of distal clavicle resection in patients with acromioclavicular joint osteoarthritis and full‐thickness rotator cuff tear
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of distal clavicle resection (DCR) on subjective and objective outcome measures in patients with acromioclavicular (AC) joint osteoarthritis (OA) and rotator cuff tear. METHODS: Prospectively collected data of consecutive patients with arthroscopic evidence of OA of the ACJ with complete data at 2 years were used for the data analysis. Patients with moderate-to-severe OA of the AC joint underwent a DCR in conjunction with rotator cuff repair, while patients with mild OA of the ACJ underwent surgery related to concomitant rotator cuff tear without a DCR. RESULTS: Data of 184 (72 females, 112 males, mean age: 62) patients with rotator cuff tear and varying degrees of OA of the AC joint were used for the analysis. Of 184 patients, 144 (78 %) had a resection of distal clavicle (resection group) and 40 (22 %) did not have a resection (no-resection group). Both groups showed a statistically significant (p < 0.0001) improvement in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, Constant Murley score, and strength. Multivariable analysis showed that lower pre-operative ASES scores (higher disability), having a larger tear, an active compensation claim, and not having a DCR, had a negative impact on post-operative ASES scores. CONCLUSION: When untreated surgically, even mild arthroscopic findings of AC joint OA may lead to a poorer outcome after rotator cuff repair. Further characterisation of patients in whom mild arthroscopic findings of OA of AC joint are clinically significant and warrant resection is needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective outcome study, Level II.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it