Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair with and without Acromioplasty in the Treatment of Full-Thickness Rotator Cuff Tears
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to reevaluate patients from a previous randomized controlled trial at a long-term follow-up to determine the long-term efficacy of subacromial decompression in patients with full-thickness rotator cuff tears. METHODS: This is a secondary study based on a previous, multicenter, randomized controlled trial with patients allocated to arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with or without acromioplasty. The original study was conducted between 2003 and 2011, and the secondary study was conducted between 2015 and 2021. Patients were invited by a blinded assessor to return to complete the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) index and a questionnaire about reoperation and to undergo a clinical assessment. If participants were unable to return, they were asked to complete the questionnaires by mail. A chart review on all participants in the original study was conducted. RESULTS: Eighty-six patients were randomized in the original trial, with 31 of 45 from the group without acromioplasty and 25 of 41 from the acromioplasty group returning for long-term follow-up. The mean duration (and standard deviation) of follow-up was 11.2 ± 2.4 years for the group without acromioplasty and 11.5 ± 2.6 years for the acromioplasty group. There was no significant difference in WORC scores between the groups with and without acromioplasty at the time of the long-term follow-up (p = 0.30). Seven (16%) of the 45 patients in the group without acromioplasty underwent reoperation. One (2%) of the initial 41 patients allocated to acromioplasty underwent reoperation. All patients who underwent a reoperation had a Type-2 or 3 acromion. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent rotator cuff repair with or without acromioplasty experienced improvement of outcomes from their preoperative level at a long-term follow-up (mean, 11 years), and there were no differences in patient-reported outcomes, specifically WORC scores, between these groups. However, a significantly higher reoperation rate was observed in patients who had rotator cuff repair without acromioplasty, specifically in those with a Type-2 or 3 acromion. 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".