Protocol for a Retrospective Comparative Study to Determine the Effect of Two Different Biocomposite Suture Anchors on the Occurrence of Bony Ingrowth and Implant Reabsorption Following Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Surgical treatment of rotator cuff tears commonly entails reattachment of the ruptured tendon to its bony insertion using suture anchors. Suture anchor design has evolved from solid metal anchors to vented biocomposite anchors with potentially biologic consequences. Few studies have investigated the differences between different modern anchor design and materials, making it difficult to justify their use or cost. OBJECTIVE: To compare the rate of bony ingrowth and implant resorption between a coil-type open-architecture biocomposite suture anchor and a vented screw-type biocomposite suture anchor, used for arthroscopic double-row rotator cuff repair. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this retrospective comparative study, a consecutive series of patients who undergo a double row rotator cuff repair using a coil-type open architecture biocomposite suture anchor in the medial row and a vented screw-type biocomposite suture anchor in the lateral row will be included. A sample size calculation demonstrated that 16 participants are required in each group. Primary outcome measures will be bony ingrowth and reabsorption of the suture anchor as measured on computed tomography (CT). Secondary outcomes will include patient reported outcome measures (The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score and The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff questionnaire), range of motion, postoperative tendon integrity, and cyst formation. HIGHLIGHTS: Open-architecture suture anchors facilitate the release of marrow constituents.The rate of bony ingrowth for coil- and screw-type anchors will be assessed.The difference in functional outcome between the two anchors will be assessed.
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 | 0.031 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.012 |
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".