MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311288577 · doi:10.1186/s12891-022-06007-z

Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair In Patients With Parkinson’s Disease: A Propensity Score Matching Study With Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

2022· article· en· W4311288577 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yufan Qian, Kailun Wu, Feng Zhou, Li Li, Jiong Jiong Guo

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaGovernment of Jiangsu ProvinceNational Children's Research Centre
KeywordsMedicinePropensity score matchingRotator cuffSports medicineOrthopedic surgeryParkinson's diseasePhysical therapyRheumatologyRehabilitationNeurologyArthroscopySurgeryInternal medicineDiseasePhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although the effectiveness of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) for structural and functional outcomes has been widespread proven, few researchers investigated the impact of ARCR on patients with Parkinson's Disease (PD), which may have previously been viewed as a relative contraindication to ARCR. METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively for all patients who underwent ARCR for small- to large-sized rotator cuff tears between September 2014 and May 2019. Patients were eligible for the study if they indicated that they diagnosed with rotator cuff repair and had minimum 2-year postoperative outcome scores for the range of motion (ROM), the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC), the Constant-Murley Score (CMS), the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Propensity score matching (PSM), a statistical method, was used to screen a control group without PD matched 1:1 with similar age, sex, tear size, preoperative stiffness, and fatty infiltration, which have previously been identified as important factors influencing success rates. RESULTS: Three hundred and eighty-nine patients met all study criteria including required follow-up, of whom 31 and 358 with PD and without PD, respectively. After adjusting for confounders, the propensity score matched indicators were compared, patients with PD experienced significantly more pain (4.45 ± 2.43 vs. 0.52 ± 1.18; P<.001) and had lower WORC (49.10 ± 21.22 vs. 78.90 ± 17.54; P<.001), CMS (46.77 ± 22.24 vs. 79.45 ± 14.74; P<.001) and UCLA (21.11 ± 8.54 vs. 28.16 ± 6.16; P<.001) scores respectively than the matched control group. They also exhibited higher sleep disturbance (10.04 ± 5.36 vs. 5.19 ± 3.28; P<.001), as well as higher anxiety and depression psychological status at 24 months (P<.001; P<.001). Overall clinical outcomes from preoperatively to postoperatively were not improved significantly for patients with PD vs. without PD. CONCLUSION: Patients with PD experienced significantly more pain, resulted in worse shoulder functional outcomes, and reported persistently diminished mental and physical health status. Shoulder surgeons should be cognizant of PD as an outcome-modifying variable when treating patients with rotator cuff tears. This finding suggested that the need for ARCR in patients with PD should be carefully considered in the light of personalized needs and physical conditions.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Musculoskeletal DisordersSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207