MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2491399326 · doi:10.1177/2325967116s00194

Repair Integrity and Clinical Outcomes Following Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair

2016· article· en· W2491399326 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ariel A. Williams, Patrick B. Mark, Jessica DiVenere, Stephen A. Klinge, Robert A. Arciero, Augustus D. Mazzocca

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRotator cuffSurgeryMagnetic resonance imagingRange of motionRotator cuff injuryRehabilitationRandomized controlled trialClinical trialProspective cohort studyPhysical therapyRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: To prospectively evaluate the effect of early versus delayed motion on repair integrity on 6-month postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans following rotator cuff repair, and to correlate repair integrity with clinical and functional outcomes. We hypothesized that repair integrity would differ between the early and delayed groups and that patients with repair failures would have worse clinical and functional outcomes. Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, single blinded clinical trial comparing an early motion (post-op day 2-3) to a delayed motion (post-op day 28) rehabilitation protocol following arthroscopic repair of isolated supraspinatus tears. All patients underwent MRI at 6 months post-operatively as part of the study protocol. A blinded board-certified and fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeon (not part of the surgical team) reviewed operative photos and video to confirm the presence of a full thickness supraspinatus tear and to ensure an adequate and consistent repair. The same surgeon along with a blinded sports medicine fellowship-trained musculoskeletal radiologist independently reviewed all MRIs to determine whether the repair was intact at 6 months. Outcome measures were collected by independent evaluators who were also blinded to group assignment. These included the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) index, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) ratings, pain scores, sling use, and physical exam data. Enrolled patients were followed at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year. Results: From October 2008 to April 2012, 73 patients met all inclusion criteria and were willing to participate. 36 patients were randomized to delayed motion and 37 were randomized to early motion. The final study group at 6 months consisted of 58 study participants. Postoperative MRIs were obtained on all of these patients at 6 months regardless of whether or not they were progressing as expected. These MRIs demonstrated an overall failure rate of 29%. This did not differ significantly based on early or late motion, with 9 (26%) tears occurring in the delayed motion group compared to 10 (32%) in the early motion group (p=0.70). When patients with repair failures were compared to those with intact cuffs, no significant differences were detected in range of motion, strength, or WORC, SANE, or pain scores at 6 months or 1 year. Interestingly, however, at 6 weeks, both WORC and SANE scores were significantly better in patients who were later found to have repair failures on MRI (p<0.05). When evaluated irrespective of rehabilitation protocol, non-compliance with sling use was associated with higher failures rates (p<0.05). Conclusion: Repair failure rates do not significantly differ between patients randomized to early and delayed motion protocols following arthroscopic single tendon rotator cuff repair. Repair failure on MRI does not correlate with clinical outcome at 6 months or 1 year. However, better subjective outcome scores at 6 weeks are associated with higher rates of repair failure at 6 months.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207