Full‐thickness rotator cuff tears in patients younger than 55 years: clinical outcome of arthroscopic repair in comparison with older patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine whether younger patients had a similar response to repair of a full-thickness rotator cuff tear (RCT) as older patients. METHODS: A secondary analysis was conducted of prospectively collected data of patients with full-thickness RCTs. Patients were categorized into patients <55 years of age and patients 55 and older. Patient-related outcome measures of disability at 2 years following surgery were the Short Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (Short WORC), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon's (ASES) assessment form, and absolute Constant-Murley score (ACMS). RESULTS: Review of the database between 2001 and 2011 identified 344 patients (median age 62, range 24-90). Of these, 83 (24 %) patients were younger than 55 years of age (median age 48, range 24-54) and 261 (76 %) were in the older age group (median age 66, range 55-90). The median follow-up was 24 months (range 23-25). Patients in the younger age group had a higher prevalence of traumatic events (p = 0.02), had sustained more work-related injuries (p < 0.0001), and had a higher ratio of smaller tears (p = 0.0001). No difference was seen between groups with respect to post-operative scores of Short WORC, ASES, or ACMS. Pre-operative scores, having a work-related claim, increased tear size, and concomitant procedures affected the 2-year outcome scores. CONCLUSION: This study shows that younger patients with full-thickness RCTs who undergo an arthroscopic repair do as well as older individuals regardless of the measure used to document their recovery. 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".