Patient Reported Outcomes of Capsular Repair versus Capsulotomy in Patients Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy: Minimum 5‐Year Follow‐Up. A Matched Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery to manage a lesion of LHBT.Previous surgery on the affected shoulder or any other significant medical comorbidity were exclusion criteria.The primary outcome measure was the American Shoulder and Elbow Society standardized assessment of shoulder function (ASES).Secondary outcomes included: Western Ontario Rotator Cuff score (WORC), operative time, presence of cosmetic deformity, and elbow flexion and supination strength (affected/ unaffected ratio).Study time points were pre, and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months post-operative.Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was conducted at 12-months postoperative.Results: Fifty-six participants were randomly assigned to each group.Table 1 summarizes the current results to 12months.There were no significant differences in ASES or WORC scores at pre-or post-surgery time points.MRI findings were available on 40 patients at the 12-month post-operative period.Of 23 in the tenodesis group, one was not intact and retracted 18 cm and two were partially torn.Of the 17 in the tenotomy group, none appeared retracted.The relative risk of patient-reported cosmetic deformity in the tenotomy group relative to the tenodesis group was 11.0 (p¼0.09) at 12-months.There were no differences between groups in level of pain or cramping, or elbow flexion or supination strength at any time point.Conclusion: Arthroscopic treatment of lesions of LHBT, whether tenodesis or tenotomy, was shown to have favourable results.Tenodesis favoured tenotomy based on the presence/absence of cosmetic deformity.Otherwise, there were no measurable differences between techniques.As data continues to be gathered to 24-month post-operative, longer-term benefits and drawbacks of each procedure may become evident.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".