The Effect of Delayed Injection of Leukocyte‐Rich Platelet‐Rich Plasma Following Rotator Cuff Repair on Patient Function: A Randomized Double‐Blind Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of delayed application of leukocyte-rich platelet-rich plasma (PRP) on rotator cuff repair results as assessed by outcome scores and imaging at one year. METHODS: Patients with a symptomatic rotator cuff tear awaiting arthroscopic repair were approached to take part in the study. Final eligibility for the study was confirmed at the time of surgery. A total of 97 patients were randomized to an ultrasound guided injection of leukocyte-rich PRP or normal saline between 10 and 14 days postsurgery. A total of 87 patients completed clinical evaluation and underwent magnetic resonance imaging imaging at 1 year. Outcome scores included the American Shoulder and Elbow Score, Constant score, Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index, and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score. Structural integrity of the repair was assessed according to the Sugaya grading. Muscle fatty infiltration was assessed on magnetic resonance imaging using the Goutallier classification. RESULTS: At 1 year postsurgery, there was no significant difference between the treatment groups on any of the patient-reported outcome measures or Constant score. On postoperative imaging analysis, there was no difference in the retear rates (Sugaya 4 and 5) between the groups (21% in control group vs 15.3% in PRP group). Fatty infiltration on postoperative imaging was found to be significantly higher in the normal saline group compared with the PRP group (Kendall's tau-b P = .032). CONCLUSIONS: The delayed application of PRP postrotator cuff repair did not improve function as measured by patient-reported outcome measures and Constant score at 1 year postoperatively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective randomized therapeutic 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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".