Partial Rotator Cuff Repair Provides Improved Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures Following Superior Capsule Reconstruction (SCR)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To evaluate the role of concomitant partial rotator cuff repair (RCR) (i.e., infraspinatus) on patient‐reported clinical outcomes following superior capsule reconstruction (SCR). Methods Postoperative recovery outcomes of SCR alone were compared with SCR with concomitant infraspinatus rotator cuff repair (SCR+RCR) at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. Patients were included if they had an SCR surgery with or without a concomitant infraspinatus repair. Patients were excluded if they did not have a minimum of 6 months’ follow‐up or if a preoperative baseline questionnaire was not performed. Outcome measures included pain visual analog scale, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Shoulder Function, ASES Shoulder Index, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score. Results Overall, 180 patients were evaluated, including 163 patients who underwent SCR alone and 17 patients who underwent concomitant infraspinatus repair (SCR+RCR). There was no difference in demographic data including age, sex, and body mass index. The postoperative recovery curves demonstrated SCR alone and SCR+RCR both provide significantly improved pain and functional scores at 2 years postoperatively ( P < .001). When we compared the 2 groups, SCR+RCR provided significantly improved ASES Index (87.6 vs 78.2, P = .048) and ASES Function (25.5 vs 21.7, P = .02). There was no statistically significant difference in SANE scores (75.5 vs 64.2, P = .07) at 24 months’ follow‐up. Conclusions SCR provides modest improvements in pain and function at 2 years postoperatively in patients with irreparable rotator cuff tears. Patients who underwent SCR and concomitant infraspinatus repair demonstrated significantly improved ASES Index and ASES Function scores and statistically nonsignificant improvement in SANE scores at 24 months postoperatively when compared with SCR alone. Level of Evidence III, retrospective cohort study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".