MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283746455 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.21.00667

InSpace Implant Compared with Partial Repair for the Treatment of Full-Thickness Massive Rotator Cuff Tears

2022· article· en· W4283746455 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nikhil N. Verma, Uma Srikumaran, Colleen M. Roden, Edwin J. Rogusky, Peter Lapner, Heather Neill, Joseph A. Abboud

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRotator cuffTearsSurgeryElbowImplantVisual analogue scaleRandomized controlled trialRange of motionCuff

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of a subacromial balloon spacer (InSpace implant; Stryker) compared with arthroscopic partial repair in patients with irreparable, posterosuperior massive rotator cuff tears. METHODS: Patients ≥40 years of age with symptomatic, irreparable, posterosuperior, massive rotator cuff tears and an intact subscapularis who underwent failed nonoperative management were included in this randomized controlled trial comparing the InSpace implant with partial repair. Clinical outcome data were collected at baseline through a 24-month follow-up. The primary outcome was improvement in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores. The secondary outcomes included change from baseline in the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) score, the visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, the Constant-Murley shoulder score, the EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) score, active range of motion, and operative time. Complications and reoperations for each group were also recorded. RESULTS: Twenty sites randomized 184 patients: 93 in the InSpace group and 91 in the partial repair group. Significant and clinically relevant improvements in the ASES score from baseline were noted in both groups at Month 12 and were maintained at Month 24. Overall, 83% of patients in the InSpace group and 81% of patients in the partial repair group achieved the ASES minimally clinically important difference threshold, and 82% of patients in the InSpace group and 79% of patients in the partial repair group achieved the substantial clinical benefit threshold. Forward elevation was significantly greater in the InSpace group compared with the partial repair group at Day 10 (p = 0.04), Week 6 (p = 0.0001), Month 12 (p = 0.005), and Month 24 (p = 0.003). The operative time was significantly shorter in the InSpace group (p < 0.0001). No device-related surgical complications were noted, and 4 reoperations after InSpace implantation and 3 reoperations after partial repair were required. CONCLUSIONS: The InSpace implant is an appropriate alternative to partial repair in patients with irreparable posterosuperior massive rotator cuff tears and an intact subscapularis. Notable benefits include early functional recovery and pain relief combined with a shorter operative time. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.253
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations104
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint SurgerySame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207