Bridging Allograft Reconstruction Is Superior to Maximal Repair for the Treatment of Chronic, Massive Rotator Cuff Tears: Results of a Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite advances in surgical techniques, the use of maximal repair to treat large or massive rotator cuff tears results in a high retear rate postoperatively. Currently, no randomized controlled trials have compared the outcomes of maximal repair with interposition dermal allograft bridging reconstruction. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that large or massive rotator cuff tendon tears reconstructed using bridging dermal allograft would have better clinical outcomes 2 years postoperatively, as measured using the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) index, than would those receiving the current gold standard treatment of debridement and maximal repair alone. We also expected that patients treated via bridging reconstruction using dermal allograft would have fewer postoperative failures as assessed using postoperative magnetic resonance imaging scans. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence 1. Methods: A sample size of 30 patients (determined using a priori sample size calculation) with massive, retracted rotator cuff tears were randomly allocated to 1 of 2 groups: maximal repair or bridging reconstruction using dermal allograft. All patients completed questionnaires (WORC and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand [DASH]) preoperatively and postoperatively at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. The primary outcome of this study was the WORC index at 2 years. Secondary outcomes included healing rate, progression of rotator cuff arthropathy, and postoperative acromiohumeral distance in both groups. Results: Patients treated via bridging reconstruction using dermal allograft had better postoperative WORC and DASH scores (23.93 ± 24.55 and 15.77 ± 19.27, respectively) compared with patients who received maximal repair alone (53.36 ± 31.93 and 34.32 ± 23.31, respectively). We also noted increased progression to rotator cuff arthropathy in the maximal repair group with an increased retear rate when compared with the reconstruction group (87% and 21%, respectively; P < .001). The acromiohumeral distance was maintained in the reconstruction group but significantly decreased in the maximal repair group. Conclusion: Rotator cuff bridging reconstruction using a dermal allograft demonstrated improved patient-reported outcomes as measured using the WORC index 2 years postoperatively. This technique also showed favorable structural healing rates and decreased progression to arthropathy compared with maximal repair. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01987973)
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".