Early mobilisation following mini-open rotator cuff repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the clinical outcomes following mini-open rotator cuff repair (MORCR) between early mobilisation and usual care, involving initial immobilisation. In total, 189 patients with radiologically-confirmed full-thickness rotator cuff tears underwent MORCR and were randomised to either early mobilisation (n = 97) or standard rehabilitation (n = 92) groups. Patients were assessed at six weeks and three, six, 12 and 24 months post-operatively. Six-week range of movement comparisons demonstrated significantly increased abduction (p = 0.002) and scapular plane elevation (p = 0.006) in the early mobilisation group, an effect which was not detectable at three months (p > 0.51) or afterwards. At 24 months post-operatively, patients who performed pain-free, early active mobilisation for activities of daily living showed no difference in clinical outcomes from patients immobilised for six weeks following MORCR. We suggest that the choice of rehabilitation regime following MORCR may be left to the discretion of the patient and the treating surgeon.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".