Abduction Brace Versus Antirotation Sling After Arthroscopic Cuff Repair: The Effects on Pain and Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To study the effects on pain as the main outcome parameter and on function and cuff integrity as the secondary outcome parameters after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in the short term comparing the abduction brace with an antirotation sling for postoperative shoulder immobilization. METHODS: Eligible patients were between the ages of 18 and 75 years who were diagnosed with a traumatic or degenerative tear of the supraspinatus and/or infraspinatus tendon, confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging, for which an arthroscopic footprint repair was indicated and performed. Patients were randomly allocated to the antirotation sling or abduction brace group. Postoperative pain and use of analgesics were accurately registered up to 3 months after surgery using a patient diary. Follow-up examinations including the Constant-Murley score, Western Ontario Rotator Cuff index, and glenohumeral range of motion were scheduled 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months, and 1 year after surgery. RESULTS: The average level of pain measured directly postoperation up to 1 year after surgery was not significant different between groups. Postoperatively, function scores and glenohumeral range of motion improved significantly for both groups; however, no differences were observed between groups. No retears were observed on ultrasonograph 3 months after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: In the short term, the level of pain, function, and quality of life were not significantly different between the use of an abduction brace and that of an antirotation sling after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Based on these findings, the abduction brace used in this study does not seem to be the solution for decreasing the pain experienced in the first postoperative weeks after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, and both are recommendable. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, 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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".