Patient‐Determined Outcomes After Arthroscopic Margin Convergence Rotator Cuff Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether patients who require margin convergence would have equivalent postsurgical patient-determined scores compared with patients with standard rotator cuff repair. The secondary purpose of this study was to determine whether the short-term results found for patients with margin convergence repairs would be durable through medium-term follow-up. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair was performed to examine the effects of marginal convergence on patient-determined outcomes (Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and Shoulder Activity Level). Patient-determined outcomes in patients who had margin convergence repairs were compared with patients who had standard rotator cuff repair. Prospective follow-up of patients that had margin convergence repairs was performed to determine whether patient-determined outcomes deteriorated over time. RESULTS: Two-hundred-seventy-two patients had standard rotator cuff repairs and 9 patients had margin convergence rotator cuff repair (3.2%). All patients had significant improvements in their Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation. Patients requiring margin convergence rotator cuff repair had similar preoperative and postoperative scores compared with patients with a standard rotator cuff repair. At a mean follow-up of 7.5 years, there was no change in outcome scores compared with the early follow-up time point (mean 3.3 years) for patients undergoing margin convergence. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic margin convergence repair techniques along with the treatment of concomitant pathologies result in similar patient-determined outcomes compared with standard rotator cuff repair techniques. These results appear to be durable and do not deteriorate from short-term to medium-term follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III: Retrospective comparative study.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".