Comparison of Superior Capsular Reconstruction and Partial Infraspinatus Repair: A Matched-Pair Analysis of Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tears
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) represents a new option for the treatment of irreparable rotator cuff tears. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical and radiologic outcomes of SCR and compare them with the outcomes of partial repair (PR) of the infraspinatus tendon. The hypothesis was that there would be no significant differences between the clinical and radiologic outcome parameters of SCR and PR after a minimum follow-up of 2 years. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Of 21 patients who underwent SCR, 20 patients were matched in a 1:1 ratio according to sex, age, and tear configuration with 20 of 60 patients who had undergone PR; all patients were prospectively evaluated for a minimum follow-up of 2 years. The investigated outcome measures included the Constant score; Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) index; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score; and radiologic analysis of acromiohumeral distance (AHD) and humeral head centralization (HHC). RESULTS: There were no differences in the demographic data between the SCR and PR groups. The mean age of both groups was 62.3 years (range, 47-79 years), the mean tear configuration was Bateman 3.0 and Patte 2.8, and the mean follow-up period was 29.4 months (range, 24-53 months). At final follow-up, no significant differences were seen between the SCR and PR groups with regard to Constant score (77.1 vs 82.7), age- and sex-adapted Constant score (85.5% vs 91.4%), DASH score (15.6 vs 7.8), or WORC index (81.1 vs 90.4). No significant differences in the AHD or HHC were seen between the groups. The reoperation rate was 4.8% (1/21) in the SCR cohort and 15% (9/60) in the PR cohort. CONCLUSION: Both SCR and PR resulted in significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes at 2-year follow-up, with no significant differences in clinical outcomes between the 2 techniques. Further follow-up is needed to determine whether there are long-term differences in HHC and development of cuff tear arthropathy. Further investigations should also focus on the cost-effectiveness of the respective procedures.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".