Is There an Association Between the “Critical Shoulder Angle” and Clinical Outcome After Rotator Cuff Repair?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Variations in scapular morphology have been associated with the development of atraumatic rotator cuff tears (RCTs). The critical shoulder angle (CSA) accounts for both glenoid inclination and lateral extension of the acromion. The impact of the CSA on outcomes after rotator cuff repair (RCR) has not been investigated previously. Hypothesis: Our hypothesis was that individuals with smaller CSAs will have better patient-reported outcome scores over time compared with those with larger CSAs. Theoretically, a smaller CSA minimizes the biomechanical forces favoring superior translation of the humeral head, which may be advantageous after RCR. This is the first study to examine the relationship between the CSA and clinical outcomes after RCR. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Fifty-three patients (mean age, 61 years) with atraumatic full-thickness RCTs who underwent arthroscopic RCR were prospectively evaluated. Demographic data as well as the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, and a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain were prospectively collected at various time points up to 24 months postoperatively. Statistical analysis included longitudinal multilevel regression modeling to investigate the association between the CSA and the WORC, ASES, and VAS scores. Results: The overall clinical outcome, as measured by the WORC, ASES, and VAS, improved significantly ( P < .0001). Controlling for demographic and clinical characteristics, a multilevel regression analysis demonstrated that the CSA was not a significant independent predictor for change in WORC ( P = .581), ASES ( P = .458), or VAS ( P = .859) scores at 24 months after arthroscopic RCR. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability for CSA measurements resulted in interclass correlation coefficients of 0.986 and 0.982, respectively ( P < .001), indicating excellent agreement. Conclusion: The CSA did not appear to be a significant predictor of patient-reported outcomes after arthroscopic repair of atraumatic full-thickness RCTs.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".