Early Active Motion Versus Sling Immobilization After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the effect of early mobilization (EM) with standard rehabilitation (SR) over the initial 24 months following arthroscopic rotator cuff (RC) repair. METHODS: A total of 206 patients with full-thickness RC tears undergoing arthroscopic repair were randomized following preoperative assessment of shoulder range of motion (ROM), pain, strength, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) to either EM (n = 103; self-weaned from sling and performed pain-free active ROM during the first 6 weeks) or SR (n = 103; wore a sling for 6 weeks with no active ROM). Shoulder ROM, pain, and HRQOL were reassessed at 6 weeks and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively by a blinded assessor. At 6, 12, and 24 months, strength was reassessed. At 12 months, ultrasound verified RC integrity. Independent t tests assessed 6-week group differences and 2-way repeated measures analysis of variance assessed changes over time between groups. RESULTS: The groups were similar preoperatively (P > .12). The mean age of participants was 55.9 (minimum, 26; maximum, 79) years, and 131 (64%) were men. A total of 171 (83%) patients were followed to 24 months. At 6 weeks postoperatively, EM participants had significantly better forward flexion and abduction (P < .03) than the SR participants; no other group differences were noted. Over 24 months, there were no group differences in ROM after 6 weeks (P > .08), and pain (P > .06), strength (P = .35), or HRQOL (P > .20) at any time. Fifty-two (25%) subjects (30% EM; 33% SR) had a full-thickness tear present at 12-month postoperative ultrasound testing (P > .8). CONCLUSIONS: EM did not show significant clinical benefits, but there was no compromise of postoperative ROM, pain, strength, or HRQOL. Repair integrity was similar at 12 months postoperatively between groups. Consideration should be given to allow pain-free active ROM within the first 6 weeks following arthroscopic RC repair. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, high-quality randomized controlled trial.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".