Preoperative bone marrow stimulation does not improve functional outcomes in arthroscopic cuff repair: a prospective randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Despite recent advances in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, re-tear rates remain high. New methods to improve healing rates following rotator cuff repair must be sought. Our primary objective was to determine if adjunctive bone marrow stimulation with channelling five to seven days prior to arthroscopic cuff repair would lead to higher Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) scores at 24 months postoperatively compared with no channelling. METHODS: A prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Patients were randomized to receive either a percutaneous bone channelling of the rotator cuff footprint or a sham procedure under ultrasound guidance five to seven days prior to index surgery. Outcome measures included the WORC, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and Constant scores, strength, ultrasound-determined healing rates, and adverse events. RESULTS: Overall, 94 patients were randomized to either bone channelling or a sham procedure. Statistically significant improvements in all clinical outcome scores occurred in both groups from preoperative to all timepoints (p < 0.001). Intention-to-treat analysis revealed no statistical differences in WORC scores between the two interventions at 24 months postoperatively (p = 0.690). No differences were observed in secondary outcomes at any timepoint and healing rates did not differ between groups (p = 0.186). CONCLUSION: 2021;103-B(1):123-130.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".