Update on all-arthroscopic vs. mini-open rotator cuff repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To provide an updated comparison between modern arthroscopic and mini-open repairs for treating rotator cuff tears. METHODS: Multiple online databases were searched from 2010 to October 1st, 2020. A meta-analysis was conducted for patient-reported outcomes and complications. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included. Majority of patients underwent mini-open repair (MOR) compared to arthroscopic repair (AR) (57.4% vs 42.6%). A meta-analysis found statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in patient-reported outcomes favouring AR. While retear rates were higher in AR (p = 0.03) analysis of retear rates for arthroscopic double row and mini-open repairs, yielded no differences between groups (p = 0.48). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing AR for rotator cuff tears had improved post-operative clinical outcomes in some functional outcomes compared to MOR. Modern arthroscopic double row repair result in similar failure rates to open repair techniques. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Systematic Review of Level I-III studies.
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 | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".