MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Concomitant Glenohumeral Instability and Rotator Cuff Injury: An Epidemiologic and Case-Control Analysis in Military Cadets

2022· article· en· W4223445205 on OpenAlexaff
Liang Zhou, Shawn M. Gee, Matthew Posner, Kenneth L. Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenueJAAOS Global Research and Reviews · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsObject Research Systems (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRotator cuffConcomitantTearsRotator cuff injurySurgeryCohortRetrospective cohort studyDemographicsCase seriesCohort studyPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Concomitant rotator cuff tear and glenohumeral instability in a large cohort of young and active patients has not been examined. The purpose of this study was to investigate the incidence, associated variables, and outcomes in military cadets undergoing shoulder stabilization procedures with these concomitant pathologies. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of a consecutive series of collegiate patients who underwent shoulder stabilization from 2014 to 2018 at a single service academy was conducted. Exclusion criteria were noncadets, revision instability cases, multidirectional instability, and prior rotator cuff repair. A nested case-control analysis was done in a matched series of patients with and without MRI evidence of rotator cuff tear. Baseline demographics, VAS pain scale, physical therapy duration, and time to surgery were analyzed. Postoperative metrics included rate of recurrent instability, subjective outcomes, VAS pain scale, and military-specific criteria. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-four cadets met the inclusion criteria, including 272 men and 52 women averaging 20.53 ± 1.80 years of age. MRI demonstrated concomitant rotator cuff tears in 5.56% of cases. A matched case-control comparison between patients with (rotator cuff tear group) and without (no rotator cuff tear group) rotator cuff tear showed no differences in preoperative data, recurrent instability rate, or postoperative VAS pain scores (0.24 versus 0.88, P = 0.207) at mean 44-month follow-up. Fifteen of 17 patients (88.2%) in each group returned to full activity (P > 0.999). No patients failed to graduate due to shoulder concerns. No patients in the rotator cuff tear group underwent a medical board for separation from the military compared with 2 (11.8%) in the no rotator cuff tear group (P = 0.163). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of concomitant rotator cuff tears in this study of military cadets undergoing shoulder stabilization was 5.56%. In a matched cohort comparison, the presence of a rotator cuff tear on preoperative MRI was not associated with inferior clinical outcomes.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAAOS Global Research and ReviewsSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207