MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4246801588 · doi:10.1016/j.jses.2019.10.042

The Impact of Workman’s Compensation on Recovery After Biceps Tenodesis

2019· article· en· W4246801588 on OpenAlexaff
Eric R. Wagner, Jarret M. Woodmass, Michelle J. Chang, Kathryn M. Welp, Laurence D. Higgins, Jon J.P. Warner

Bibliographic record

VenueJSES Open Access · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPan Am Clinic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBicepsDemographicsSurgeryHand surgeryPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to compare the postoperative recovery outcomes of after isolated biceps tenodesis in patients with and without workman’s compensation claims. Workman’s compensation (WC) claims have been associated with poor outcomes after a variety of orthopedic surgery procedures, particularly when examining recurrent pain and function. However, the impact of WC on a variety of outcomes after shoulder surgery is not as well understood. Biceps tenodesis is a well-established treatment for isolated biceps or superior labrum pathology. However, the impact of factors, such as workman’s compensation have yet to be examined in depth Using the surgical outcomes system (SOS) database (Arthrex Inc., Naples, FL), we assessed the postoperative recovery outcomes for all patients who had outcomes recorded at least 6 months after isolated biceps tenodesis. The time points analyzed included, preoperative and postoperative (2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years). The outcomes analyzed included visual analog score (VAS), American shoulder and elbow score (ASES), VR-12 mental and physical, simple shoulder test (SST), and SANE. Overall, 181 patients with WC claims underwent isolated biceps tenodesis, compared to 1,069 patients without WC claims. There were similar demographics and comorbidities in the two groups, including gender (34% females in WC vs 38% females in non-WC), age (mean 47 years in WC vs. 50 years in non-WC), smokers (15% in WC vs. 10% in non-WC), and diabetes (8% in WC vs. 6% in non-WC). The postoperative recovery curves for VAS, ASES, and SANE are displayed in Figure 1 below. Patients without WC claims had significantly improved VAS, VR-12, ASES, SANE, and SST scores at all times points after 3 months when compared to those with WC claims (p<0.001). However, given many with measures were significantly worse preoperatively in patients with WC claims, we also analyzed the preoperative to postoperative change in all outcomes at each time point. At 1 year when compared to those without WC claims, patients with WC claims had worse VAS (p=0.03), ASES (p=0.007), SANE (p<0.001), and SST (p=0.08) (Figure 2 below). When analyzing the patient’s recovery after isolated biceps tenodesis, workman’s compensation claims lead to significantly worse pain and functional outcomes at every major time point (3, 6, 12, and 24 months). Furthermore, the patients with WC also had worse preoperative to postoperative improvements in most of the outcomes. This information can be used to educate surgeons and patients on postoperative expectations, as well as analyses focused on health economics, value, and policy.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.380 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJSES Open AccessSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207