Graft Healing Is More Important Than Graft Technique: Superior Capsular Reconstruction Versus Bridging Grafts—A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) versus bridging graft (BG) for massive irreparable rotator cuff tears (RCTs). METHODS: A prospective double-blind randomized study was conducted to compare SCR versus BG for massive irreparable RCTs. Fifty patients (mean age: 60.2 ± 6.0 years) with chronic tears (mean duration of symptoms: 5 ± 5.2 years) were intraoperatively randomized following partial repair to SCR or BG using human dermal allograft. All patients underwent standardized rehabilitation and were followed at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months clinically and radiographically. Magnetic resonance imaging were obtained at 12 months to determine graft integrity. RESULTS: At 2 years, 46 patients were available for follow-up. Mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC), and Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores were 74.8 ± 23.9, 66.0 ± 28.3, and 24.7 ± 26.1 for the SCR group, and 77.9 ± 19.9, 69.5 ± 24.5, and 25.0 ± 19.1 for the BG group, respectively, with no significant difference between groups. Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated 18 of 24 (75%) in the SCR group and 14 of 22 (64%) in the BG group were intact at 12 months (P = .53). Patients with intact grafts compared with those with retorn grafts, whether SCR or BG, had greater ASES and WORC scores at 24 months (ASES 81.0 ± 18.7 vs 65.7 ± 24.4, P = .021 and WORC 72.3 ± 24.6 vs 53.7 ± 26.7, P = .04) and greater acromiohumeral intervals on radiographs at all follow-up time points. CONCLUSIONS: When performing arthroscopic reconstruction using human dermal allograft for an irreparable RCT, whether the proximal edge of the graft is attached on the glenoid bone or to the torn tendon does not significantly change short-term clinical and radiographic outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I, therapeutic.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".