The Effect of Early Range of Motion on Quality of Life, Clinical Outcome, and Repair Integrity After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the effect of early versus delayed motion protocols on quality of life, clinical outcomes, and repair integrity in patients who have undergone arthroscopic single-tendon rotator cuff repair. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, investigator-blinded clinical trial. Seventy-three patients from a single surgeon's practice who underwent arthroscopic repair of a single-tendon rotator cuff tear were randomized to either an early motion protocol (starting 2 to 3 days after surgery) or a delayed motion protocol (starting 28 days after surgery). The primary outcome measure was the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff index (WORC). Secondary outcome measures included clinical outcome scores, integrity of the repair on 6-month magnetic resonance imaging scans, pain scores, physical examination data, and ultrasonography. Study participants were followed up at 3, 6, and 12 weeks; 6 months; and 1 year postoperatively. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in WORC scores at 6 months (529 ± 472 in delayed group vs 325 ± 400 in early group, P = .08). Mixed-effects analysis indicated the early group maintained lower WORC scores throughout the postoperative period (estimated difference of 191, P = .04). The proportions of patients with tears on the 6-month postoperative magnetic resonance imaging scan were comparable (31% in delayed group vs 34% in early group, P = .78). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference between the delayed and early motion groups in WORC scores at 6 months after surgery. Early motion was associated with lower WORC scores throughout the postoperative period; however, both groups had a similar trajectory of improvement, suggesting both protocols have the same effect on patient-reported improvement. Although failure rates were similar between the groups, the sample size was not sufficient to support a statement regarding the relation between tear morphology and the rehabilitation protocol. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, lesser-quality randomized controlled trial.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".