MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890939124 · doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2018.05.036

No Functional Difference Between Three and Six Weeks of Immobilization After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Non‐Inferiority Trial

2018· article· en· W2890939124 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kjersti Kaul Jenssen, Kirsten Lundgreen, Jan Erik Madsen, Rune Kvakestad, Are Hugo Pripp, Sigbjørn Dimmen

Bibliographic record

VenueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Business Machines Corporation
KeywordsMedicineRotator cuffSurgeryBraceRandomized controlled trialProspective cohort studyArthroscopyMagnetic resonance imagingTearsRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare clinical and radiologic results among patients with 3 versus 6 weeks of immobilization after arthroscopic rotator cuff (RC) repair in a prospective randomized controlled non-inferiority trial. METHODS: One hundred twenty patients were included after RC surgery for a small- to medium-sized tear of supraspinatus and upper infraspinatus tendons. Group A was immobilized in a simple sling for 3 weeks, and group B had a brace with a small abduction pillow with the arm in neutral position for 6 weeks. All patients started active range of motion when they removed the sling/brace. One hundred eighteen (98%) patients were assessed at 1-year follow-up. They underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the shoulder, filled out the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) index, and were evaluated with a Constant Murley (CM) score. RESULTS: Statistical non-inferiority was demonstrated for the 2 groups on the basis of the WORC index, the primary endpoint at 1 year. The objective for the non-inferiority test was to determine whether the expected mean WORC index for group A was at most 13% worse than standard treatment (Group B). The WORC index at 1 year was similar in both groups, with mean percent scores of 83% in group A and 87% in group B (mean difference = -4; 95% one-sided CI -9, -4). Age-adjusted CM scores were also similar, with means of 86 in group A and 90 in group B (mean difference = -4; 95% CI -13, 5; P = .37). MRI after 1 year showed 50 (89%) patients in each group with healed RC repair. Four patients in group A had complications: 1 acute postoperative infection, 2 cases of postoperative capsulitis treated with corticosteroid injections, and 1 repeat operation because of a loose anchor and subacromial pain. No patients in group B had complications. CONCLUSION: RC repair resulted in improved postoperative shoulder function, regardless of whether the shoulder was immobilized for 3 or 6 weeks. Three weeks of postoperative immobilization with sling use was non-inferior to the commonly used regimen involving 6 weeks of immobilization in a brace with regard to the WORC index at 12 months' follow-up. MRI indicated similar degrees of healing between the groups. Based on these findings, it is safe to immobilize patients in a simple sling for 3 to 6 weeks after repair of small to medium RC tears. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, high-quality randomized controlled trial with statistically significant differences.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations52
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related SurgerySame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207