Similar results comparing early and late surgery in open repair of traumatic rotator cuff tears
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose was to investigate whether surgical repair earlier or later than 3 months after injury may result in similar outcomes and patient satisfaction. METHODS: Seventy-three patients (75 shoulders, 58 males, mean age 59) who had undergone surgical intervention for traumatic rotator cuff tears from 1999 to 2011 were assessed by MRI, clinical examination and Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) as a primary outcome measure and Oxford Shoulder score (OSS), Constant-Murley score (CS) and EQ-5D as secondary. The patients treated less than 3 months after injury (n = 39) were compared with patients treated more than 3 months after injury (n = 36). The average follow-up time was 56 months (range 14-149), and the average time from injury to repair for all patients was 16 weeks (range 3-104). A single senior radiologist performed a blinded evaluation of all the MRIs. Rotator cuff integrity, presence of arthritis, fatty degeneration and muscle atrophy were evaluated. RESULTS: No differences were found for any of the assessed outcomes (WORC, OSS, CS and EQ-5D) between the two groups. The mean WORC % was 77 % for both groups. Re-tear frequency was 24 %, nine in both groups. Patients with re-tear reported less satisfaction with their outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The surgical treatment of symptomatic traumatic rotator cuff tears repairable later than 3 months after injury yields a good functional outcome, a high level of subjective patient satisfaction, and at the same level for patients receiving earlier treatment. Based on our findings, surgical repair could be encouraged whenever technically possible. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective Comparative Study, Level III.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".