Establishing Maximal Medical Improvement After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As health care transitions from a pay-for-service to a pay-for-performance infrastructure, the value of orthopaedic care must be defined accurately. Significant efforts have been made in defining quality and cost in arthroplasty; however, there remains a lag in ambulatory orthopaedic care. PURPOSE: Two-year follow-up has been a general requirement for reporting outcomes after rotator cuff repair. However, this time requirement has not been established scientifically and is of increasing importance in the era of value-based health care. Given that arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is a common ambulatory orthopaedic procedure, the purpose of this study was to establish a time frame for maximal medical improvement (the state when improvement has stabilized) after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted, identifying studies reporting sequential patient-reported outcomes up to a minimum of 2 years after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. The primary clinical outcome was patient-reported outcomes at 3-month, 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year follow-up. Secondary clinical outcomes included range of motion, strength, retears, and complications. Clinically significant improvement was determined between various time intervals by use of the minimal clinically important difference. RESULTS: The review included 19 studies including 1370 patients who underwent rotator cuff repair. Clinically significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes was seen up to 1 year after rotator cuff repair, but no clinical significance was noted from 1 year to 2 years. The majority of improvement in strength and range of motion was seen up to 6 months, but no clinically meaningful improvement was seen thereafter. All reported complications and the majority of retears occurred within 6 months after rotator cuff repair. CONCLUSION: After rotator cuff repair, a clinically significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes, range of motion, and strength was seen up to 1 year after surgery, but not beyond this. This information is important not only to establish appropriate patient expectations but also to determine a time frame for outcome collection after surgery to better define value in orthopaedic care.
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 | 0.015 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".