Risk Analysis of Perioperative Injections in Arthroscopic Reconstruction of the Rotator Cuff of the Shoulder – A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The present study used a systematic review to analyse the risk of perioperative injections during arthroscopic reconstruction of the rotator cuff of the shoulder. The questions of interest were whether perioperative local injection increases the infection risk and whether the number of postoperative revisions is increased. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review of the U. S. National Library of Medicine/National Institutes of Health (PubMed) database and the Cochrane Library was performed using the PRISMA checklist. The keywords used were "shoulder" and "arthroscopy" and "injection" and "risk". In the course of the study, work that was not also primarily concerned with the reconstruction of the rotator cuff was excluded. English original articles and case series were included that contained at least some arthroscopic reconstructions of the rotator cuff. The risk of bias was determined using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The content of the articles relevant to the research questions was analysed. RESULTS: 48 hits were primarily generated. 9 articles corresponded to the inclusion criteria and were analysed. In the 6 studies with details on the injected substances, cortisone was used in 98 - 100% of the cases. The reported infection and revision rates based on insurance data were higher with injection than without. The risk of bias in the studies analysed here was rather low based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Score. The risk of infection after a cortisone injection before, during or after surgery was increased. Injection was associated with infection in up to 8% of cases with injections within two weeks of surgery. The risk of infection was increased by up to 11 times with injections within 4 weeks after the operation. Likewise, the risk of revision surgery after injection was increased, with the time intervals between injection and surgery sometimes differing between studies. DISCUSSION: Local infections and to a lesser extent revision surgery are associated with perioperative injections (with cortisone) within 3 months preoperatively and 4 weeks postoperatively. However, there were only database studies of insurance data with several studies from a few centres. Thus, no causal relationships could be proven. Currently, however, the following can be recommended using a cautious approach: The interval between injection with cortisone before surgery should be at least 2 weeks, better 3 months. No cortisone injections should be applied intraoperatively. Postoperatively, cortisone should not be injected for at least 4 weeks. If, in exceptional cases, deviations from these time limits are required, patients should be informed about an increased risk of complications.
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 | 0.025 | 0.132 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".