Arthroscopic management of suprascapular neuropathy of the shoulder improves pain and functional outcomes with minimal complication rates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to systematically assess the arthroscopic management of suprascapular neuropathy, including the aetiology, surgical decision-making, clinical outcomes, and complications associated with the procedure. METHODS: Three databases [PubMed, Ovid (Medline), and Embase] were searched. Systematic literature screening and data abstraction was performed in duplicate to present a review of studies reporting on arthroscopic management of suprascapular neuropathy. The quality of the included studies was assessed using level of evidence and the MINORS (Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies) checklist. RESULTS: In total, 40 studies (17 case reports, 20 case series, 2 retrospective comparative studies, and 1 prospective comparative study) were identified, including 259 patients (261 shoulders) treated arthroscopically for suprascapular neuropathy. The most common aetiology of suprascapular neuropathy was suprascapular nerve compression by a cyst at the spinoglenoid notch (42%), and the decision to pursue arthroscopic surgery was most commonly based on the results of clinical findings and investigations (47%). Overall, 97% of patients reported significant improvement in or complete resolution of their pre-operative symptoms (including pain, strength, and subjective function of the shoulder) over a mean follow-up period of 23.7 months. Further, there was a low overall complication rate (4%) associated with the arthroscopic procedures. CONCLUSION: While most studies evaluating arthroscopic management of suprascapular neuropathy are uncontrolled studies with lower levels of evidence, results indicate that such management provides patients with significant improvements in pain, strength, and subjective function of the shoulder, and has a low incidence of complications. Patients managed arthroscopically for suprascapular neuropathy may expect significant improvements in pain, strength, and subjective function of the shoulder. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of level II to IV studies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".