Periimplant osteolysis does not affect the outcome of rotator cuff repair: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose The goal of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta‐analysis to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of rotator cuff repair, depending on the presence of developed periimplant osteolysis (PIO) after using suture anchors. Methods The electronic databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for articles published up until October 2019 to find relevant articles comparing the outcomes of rotator cuff repair between the periimplant osteolysis group and non‐periimplant osteolysis group. Data searching, extraction, analysis, and quality assessment were performed according to the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. The results are presented as risk ratio (RR) for binary outcomes and standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results Six clinical studies were included. No significant differences were found between the group with periimplant osteolysis and the group without periimplant osteolysis regarding retear rate (RR = 1.34; 95% CI 0.93–1.94; I2 = 28%), postoperative clinical scores (SMD = 0.29; 95% CI − 0.26 to 0.83; I2 = 80%) and range of motion (ROM); forward flexion (SMD = 0.39; 95% CI − 0.16 to 0.93; I2 = 0%), external rotation (SMD = − 0.10; 95% CI − 0.64 to 0.45; I2 = 0%) and internal rotation (SMD = − 0.37; 95% CI − 0.92 to 0.17; I2 = 0%). Conclusion The presence of periimplant osteolysis after rotator cuff repair with suture anchor does not affect the clinical outcomes such as retear rate, clinical scoring, and ROM. However, as there was no standard consensus on the criteria for evaluating periimplant osteolysis, this result may not fully reflect the effect of periimplant osteolysis depending on its severity. Level of evidence Level IV.
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 | 0.018 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".