Effect of Muscle Quality on Operative and Nonoperative Treatment of Rotator Cuff Tears
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Rotator cuff muscle atrophy and fatty infiltration are predictors of negative outcomes after rotator cuff repair. However, the impact of muscle degeneration on nonsurgical treatment is unknown. Hypothesis: Rotator cuff muscle atrophy and fatty infiltration will reduce the outcomes of operative repair while having a minimal effect on nonsurgical treatment. Additionally, in the setting of atrophy and fatty infiltration, surgical and nonsurgical treatment will produce equivalent outcomes. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Patients undergoing operative and nonoperative treatment of full-thickness rotator cuff tears were prospectively enrolled into a nonrandomized cohort study. Muscle quality was assessed on magnetic resonance imaging by use of the supraspinatus tangent sign, Warner atrophy, and Goutallier fatty infiltration classifications. Grading was performed by 2 independent observers who were blinded to patient treatment and outcomes. Normalized Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) index was the primary patient-reported outcome. Multivariate linear regression analysis was used to determine the impact of muscle quality on treatment outcomes. Results: The cohort consisted of 157 patients, 89 (57%) surgical and 68 (43%) nonsurgical, with a mean follow-up of 2.4 years (range, 1-5 years). Tangent sign had the best inter- and intrarater reliability, with kappa statistics of 0.81 and 0.86, respectively. Reliability for Warner atrophy was 0.69 to 0.76 and for Goutallier classification was 0.54 to 0.64. Overall, improvement in WORC scores was higher in the surgical group than the nonsurgical group (39.3 vs 21.2; P < .001). A positive tangent sign was the only independent predictor ( P < .01) of worse outcomes in the surgical group, accounting for an estimated 22-point lower improvement in WORC scores. Conclusion: A positive tangent sign was predictive of worse operative outcomes, resulting in equivalent improvements between surgical and nonsurgical treatment. The tangent sign is a reliable, prognostic indicator that clinicians can use when counseling patients on the optimal treatment of rotator cuff tears.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".