Concomitant Glenohumeral Instability and Rotator Cuff Injury: An Epidemiologic and Case-Control Analysis in Military Cadets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".