Impact of rotator cuff tendon reparability on patient satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The primary purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between patient satisfaction and rotator cuff tendon reparability. Materials and methods This was a secondary analysis of prospectively collected data of consecutive patients who underwent arthroscopic repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tear and were followed up for 2 years. The satisfaction level was rated on a 6-point Likert scale. Patient-oriented disability measures included the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, the short version of the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff index, the Constant-Murley score, and the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand. Partial repair was defined as repair with >1 cm residual gap. Results There were 145 patients (65 women, 80 men; mean age, 62 years) who met the inclusion criteria. There were 12 massive, 31 large, and 102 small or moderate rotator cuff tears. Of 43 large or massive tears, 23 had a partial repair. There was a statistically significant relationship between satisfaction and tendon reparability ( P = .01). Patients with work-related shoulder injury reported less satisfaction with surgery ( P = .005). Age, gender, or tear size did not affect satisfaction with surgery. Satisfaction was a predictor of all postoperative outcome scores after being adjusted for preoperative scores ( P = .001 to P < .0001). Conclusion In this study, patients with partial repair and those with an active compensable injury were less satisfied with surgery than their counterparts were. Older age, female sex, or a larger tear was not a negative predictor of patient satisfaction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".