Arthroscopic bursectomy less effective in the degenerative shoulder with chronic subacromial pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Varying results after surgery in patients with subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS) have raised the question on whether there is a subgroup of patients that can benefit from surgery. Therefore, we aimed to identify preoperative and peroperative factors associated with a favorable patient-reported outcome after arthroscopic bursectomy in patients with SAPS. Methods Patients with chronic SAPS who underwent arthroscopic bursectomy after failed conservative management were included (n = 94). Patients were evaluated at the baseline, and 2 weeks, 8 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year after surgery. The primary outcome was the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff index (WORC) score one year after surgery. The secondary outcome measure was a visual analog scale for pain. Mixed model analyses were used to identify prognostic factors. Results The mean WORC (mean difference 39%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 32.8–45.3, P < .001) and visual analog scale pain scores (mean difference 41 mm points, 95% CI 3.37–4.88, P < .001) significantly improved one year after surgery. Nineteen patients (20%) developed a postoperative frozen shoulder. A longer duration of preoperative complaints and the peroperative identification of degenerative glenoid cartilage were associated with significantly worse WORC scores, with −0.086% per month (95% CI −0.156 to −0.016, P = .016) and −20% (95% CI −39.4 to −1.26, P = .037), respectively. Conclusion We identified demographic and clinical factors that predict the course after arthroscopic subacromial bursectomy. We found that arthroscopic bursectomy is less effective in patients with SAPS with a degenerative shoulder. This finding suggests that an improved treatment effect of arthroscopic subacromial bursectomy can be expected in patients with chronic SAPS if intra-articular pathologies such as glenohumeral osteoarthritis are sufficiently excluded.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".