Rotator Cuff Reconstruction Using Fascia Lata Patch Autograft for the Nonrepairable Rotator Cuff Tear
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A large to massive rotator cuff tear is a common issue that lacks reliable options to return a patient's range of motion and function when conservative treatment has failed. With up to 96% of massive rotator cuff repairs failing within the first 6 months of repair, surgeons have been searching for a reliable treatment option for this difficult subset of patients. Surgical options for massive, retracted rotator cuff tears include re-establishing the counterforce coupling of the rotator cuff with techniques such as a partial repair or superior capsular reconstruction, preventing superior humeral migration as seen with balloon spacer implantation, and eliminating pain generators with techniques such as biceps tenotomy; however, these do not reconstitute dynamic cuff control. More recently, an acellular dermal allograft, as seen in superior capsular reconstruction, has been used to reconstruct the remaining rotator cuff. We describe a technique using a fascia lata autograft to reconstruct the rotator cuff in the setting of a massive cuff tear. This is of particular importance in centers that lack the funding or institutional approval to use acellular dermal allografts that have been popularized to date.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".