Separate double-layer repair versus en masse repair for delaminated rotator cuff tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Delaminated rotator cuff tears are a common shoulder disorder in elderly individuals. Either arthroscopic separate double-layer repair (DR) or en masse repair (ER) is used to treat a delaminated rotator cuff tear. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic ER versus DR intervention. METHODS: Five studies were acquired from PubMed, Medline, Embase, CNKI, Google, and the Cochrane Library. The data were extracted by two of the coauthors independently and were analyzed with RevMan 5.3. Mean differences (MDs), odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. The Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess the risk of bias. RESULTS: Five studies, including two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and three observational studies, were assessed. The methodological quality of the trials ranged from low to high. The pooled results for the Shoulder Rating Scale of the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) score, visual analog scale (VAS) score, Constant score, and range of motion (ROM) showed that the outcomes were not statistically significant between the two interventions. The difference in retear rate was not statistically significant (OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.36-1.33, P = 0.27). The sensitivity analysis proved the stability of the pooled results, and publication bias was not apparent. CONCLUSIONS: Both arthroscopic ER and DR interventions had benefits in delaminated rotator cuff tear treatment. ER and DR treatments were equally effective and had the same retear rate. The arthroscopic DR technique could not be recommended as the optical choice for delaminated rotator cuff tears based on current evidence.
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 | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".