Prognostic Factors for Functional Outcome After Rotator Cuff Repair: A Prospective Cohort Study With 2-Year Follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although shoulder function is reported to be generally good after rotator cuff repair, limited knowledge exists regarding which prognostic factors predict functional outcomes. PURPOSE: To identify pre- and perioperative predictors of functional outcomes after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A cohort of 733 consecutive patients treated with rotator cuff repair between 2010 and 2014 in a single orthopaedics unit was included. Data were collected prospectively and included pre- and perioperative variables. Univariate and multivariable linear regression analyses were used to predict shoulder function at 2-year follow-up, as measured by the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC). RESULTS: was 0.360, indicating that 36% of the variation in the WORC at final follow-up could be explained by this statistical model. The multivariable linear regression analysis revealed that the strongest positive independent predictors of shoulder function at 2 years were preoperative WORC and Constant-Murley score in the contralateral shoulder. The model also indicated that activities of daily living, age, subacromial decompression, and biceps surgery had independent positive associations with better shoulder function at 2 years. In addition, previous surgery in the ipsilateral or contralateral shoulder, smoking, partial rotator cuff repair, preoperative pain, and atrophy in the infraspinatus were all independent factors negatively associated with shoulder function after 2 years. The overall healing rate of complete repairs per magnetic resonance imaging was 80%. CONCLUSION: The most important finding of the present study was that the strongest prognostic factors for better WORC at 2-year follow-up were better preoperative WORC and Constant-Murley score in the contralateral shoulder. Although not all the prognostic factors identified in this study are modifiable, they can still be useful for guiding patients in shared decision making with the surgeon. This cohort study shows that if selection of patients is performed properly, it is possible to obtain a successful outcome.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".