Outcomes After Arthroscopic Rotator Interval Closure for Shoulder Instability: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: (1) To systematically assess the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic rotator interval closure (RIC) procedures for shoulder instability and (2) to report the different technical descriptions and surgical indications for this procedure. METHODS: Two independent reviewers searched 4 databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane) from database inception until October 15, 2017. The inclusion criteria were studies that reported outcomes of shoulder stabilization using arthroscopic RIC as an isolated or adjunctive surgical procedure. The methodologic quality of studies was assessed with the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies tool and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system for randomized controlled trials. RESULTS: Fifteen studies met our search criteria (524 patients). Of the studies, 12 were graded Level IV evidence; 2, Level III; and 1, Level II. Six different RIC technique descriptions were reported, with 2 studies not defining the details of the procedure. The most common method of RIC was arthroscopic plication of the superior glenohumeral ligament to the middle glenohumeral ligament (8 of 15 studies). The most commonly used patient-reported outcome measure was the Rowe score, with all studies reporting a minimum postoperative score of 80 points. The rate of return to preinjury level of sport ranged from 22% to 100%, and the postoperative redislocation rate ranged from 0% to 16%. CONCLUSIONS: The indications for RIC were poorly reported, and the surgical techniques were inconsistent. Although most studies reported positive clinical results, the heterogeneity of outcome measures limited our ability to make definitive statements about which types of rotator interval capsular closure are warranted for select subgroups undergoing arthroscopic shoulder stabilization. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level II through 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 | 0.010 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".