Comparison of all-suture anchors with metallic anchors in arthroscopic cuff repair: Structural and functional properties and clinical suitability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study examined and compared all-suture anchors with metallic anchors in the arthroscopic repair of small to medium supraspinatus tears; a multi-dimensional evaluation protocol assessed (i) clinical, (ii) ultrasonographical, and (iii) functional criteria at mid-term. Materials and methods: A sample of 40 patients, prescreened from a larger group who had undergone arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, were resolved into two groups of 20, based on the type of anchor used in their surgery (all-suture or metallic) and were evaluated postoperatively (mean = 44.3 months, SEM = 22.4 months, minimum period = 10.3 months). Clinical assessments included (i) objective and subjective scores (Constant, DASH, SPADI, SST), (ii) ultrasonographical examination, as well as (iii) isometric and isokinetic strength testing. Raw data from the operated side was compared with those from the contralateral side within each group. Raw data for the PROMs and for the US evaluation were compared between groups. Strength data, as well as the Constant score values, were further analyzed based on (i) the difference between operated and intact sides, as well as (ii) the strength ratio between operated and intact sides; the transformed data were then compared between the two groups. Results: We found no statistically significant differences in any of the parameters considered between shoulders operated using ASAs or MAs, nor between operated and non-operated sides in each group. Conclusion: Our findings indicate that the reliability and performance characteristics of all-suture anchors and metallic anchors are practically indistinguishable for arthroscopic treatment of small to medium lesions of the supraspinatus tendon.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".