MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196661483 · doi:10.1016/j.jseint.2021.07.004

Mid- to long-term results of postoperative immobilization in internal vs. external rotation after arthroscopic anterior shoulder stabilization

2021· article· en· W3196661483 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marvin Minkus, Julia Wolke, Doruk Akgün, Markus Scheibel

Bibliographic record

VenueJSES International · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal rotationRange of motionExternal rotationSurgeryProspective cohort studyRehabilitationAnterior shoulderPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background There is still a disagreement on the postoperative rehabilitation concerning position of immobilization of the shoulder after arthroscopic anterior shoulder stabilization and its influence on the clinical outcome. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical results and the recurrence rate after arthroscopic anteroinferior shoulder stabilization and postoperative immobilization in internal rotation vs. external rotation. Methods Twenty-five patients (22 male and 3 female, mean age 28.5 years) were included in this prospective nonrandomized cohort study. In group I (11 male, 2 female, mean age 28 years), the postoperative functional immobilization was carried out in internal rotation of 60°, and in group II (11 male, 1 female, mean age 30 years), 15° of external rotation of the arm for 4 weeks in both groups. The clinical follow-up was performed at 2, 4, and 6 weeks as well as at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively including assessment of range of motion and functional shoulder scores (Subjective Shoulder Value, Constant score, Rowe score, Walch Duplay score, Melbourne Instability Shoulder Score). Furthermore, shoulder instability was evaluated using the apprehension, relocation, and surprise tests. Mid-term follow-up data were additionally assessed after a minimum of 4 years. Results Twenty patients (19 male and 1 female) with an average age of 28 years were followed up for 62 (53-72) months after arthroscopic stabilization. The comparison of both groups showed almost equal results regarding the range of motion without any significant differences ( P > .05). The evaluation of the shoulder function scores also showed no significant differences with an average Subjective Shoulder Value of 95% vs. 91%, Constant score of 89 vs. 88 points, Rowe score of 96 vs. 94 points, Walch Duplay score of 86 vs. 89 points, Melbourne Instability Shoulder Score of 96 points, and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index of 88% vs. 84% ( P > .05). There was no recurrent dislocation in both groups. Conclusion The type of immobilization after arthroscopic shoulder stabilization does not influence the clinical results after a mid- to long-term follow-up.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJSES InternationalSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207