MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Synthetic Reinforcement Patch in Repair of Challenging Two-Tendon Rotator Cuff Tears

2012· article· en· W2115209301 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thomas A. Marberry

Bibliographic record

VenueShoulder & Elbow · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRotator cuffMedicineTearsSurgeryTendonRotator cuff injuryCuffQuality of life (healthcare)Nursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The repair of chronic massive tendon tears may be a challenging procedure, especially with a frayed tendon caused by degeneration. The aim of this case series was to evaluate the outcome of a synthetic patch in the repair of complex rotator cuff tears, with regard to shoulder function, pain relief and quality of life. Methods A synthetic patch (Artelon® Tissue Reinforcement; Artimplant AB, Västra Frölunda, Sweden) was used in 17 patients with challenging repairs of chronic rotator cuff tears. The outcome of surgical treatment was evaluated after 3, 6 and 12 months by the Constant functional score and the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) score. Results Significantly less pain and improved shoulder function, as evaluated by the Constant score, was seen 1 year after surgery, as well as an increased WORC score as a measure of improved disease-related quality of life. Re-operation was performed in one patient as a result of a re-tear. There were no complications related to the use of the reinforcement patch. Conclusions This case series showed satisfying results in technically challenging repairs of rotator cuff tears with the use of a synthetic reinforcement patch. Postoperatively, the patients showed less pain and improved shoulder function to the extent to perform better in daily life activities.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.492
Threshold uncertainty score0.877

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueShoulder & ElbowSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207