The Relationship Between the Critical Shoulder Angle and the Incidence of Chronic, Full‐Thickness Rotator Cuff Tears and Outcomes After Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To summarize the available evidence and examine the relationship between the critical shoulder angle (CSA) and (1) the incidence of chronic full-thickness rotator cuff tears (RCTs) and (2) outcomes after rotator cuff repair (RCR). METHODS: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL was completed. Comparative studies were included and the influence of the CSA on either the incidence of chronic, full-thickness RCTs, or outcomes following RCR was evaluated. Demographic variables and outcomes were collected. RESULTS: Seven comparative studies analyzed the influence of the CSA on the incidence of chronic, full-thickness RCTs (the control group constituted patients with a normal rotator cuff). High heterogeneity limited pooling of studies, but the majority concluded that a greater CSA significantly increased the likelihood of a chronic, full-thickness RCT. Conversely, 5 comparative studies analyzed the influence of CSA on outcomes following RCR, and although a greater CSA was associated with a greater re-tear rate, the majority reported that CSA did not significantly influence postoperative functional outcomes, including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), range of motion (ROM), and strength. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence, there appears to be a relationship between a greater CSA and the presence of a chronic, full-thickness RCT. Furthermore, a greater CSA may be associated with a greater re-tear rate following RCR; however, CSA does not appear to influence functional outcomes following RCR. Despite these observations, the available evidence is of poor quality, and the clinical utility and role of the CSA in the diagnosis and surgical management of a chronic, full-thickness RCT remains in question. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV: Systematic review of Level II-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 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".