WHAT HAPPENS TO PATIENTS WHEN WE DON'T REPAIR THEIR CUFF TEARS? FIVE-YEAR ROTATOR CUFF QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX (RC-QOL) OUTCOMES FOLLOWING NON-OPERATIVE TREATMENT OF PATIENTS WITH FULL-THICKNESS ROTATOR CUFF TEARS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine five-year outcomes of patients previously enrolled in a non-operative rotator cuff study. Patients with chronic, full-thickness rotator cuff tears (demonstrated on imaging) who were referred to one of two senior shoulder surgeons were enrolled in the study between October 2008 and September 2010. Patients participated in a comprehensive non-operative, home-based treatment program. After three months patients were defined as “successful” or “failed”. “Successful” patients were essentially asymptomatic and did not require surgery. “Failed” patients were symptomatic and consented to surgical repair. All patients were followed up at one year, two years, and five-plus years. Original results of our study showed that 75% of patients were treated successfully with non-operative treatment, while 25% went on to surgery. These numbers were maintained at two-year follow-up (previously reported) and five-year follow-up. At five+ years, 88 patients were contacted for follow-up. Fifty-eight (66%) responded. The non-operative success group had a mean RC-QOL score of 80 (SD 18) at previously reported two-year follow-up. At five-year follow-up this score did not decrease (RCQOL = 82 (SD 16)). Furthermore, between two and five years, only two patients who had previously been defined as “successful” became more symptomatic and underwent surgical rotator cuff repair. From the original cohort of patients, those who failed non-operative treatment and underwent surgical repair had a mean RC-QOL score of 89 (SD 12) at five-year follow-up. The operative and non-operative groups at five-year follow-up were not significantly different (p = 0.07). Non-operative treatment is an effective and lasting option for many patients with a chronic, full-thickness rotator cuff tear. While some may argue that non-operative treatment delays inevitable surgical fixation, our study shows that patients can do extremely well over time.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".