Arthroscopic superior capsular reconstruction with dermal allograft for primary and recurrent rotator cuff tears
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and retear rate of arthroscopic superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) with dermal allograft following structural failure of a previous rotator cuff repair, with a cohort of primary SCRs. Methods This was a retrospective comparative study with a study group comprising 22 patients who were followed up at a minimum of 24 (mean, 41; range, 27-65) months after SCR with dermal allograft performed for structural failure of a previous rotator cuff repair. The control group included 13 patients who previously underwent a primary SCR using dermal allograft and were followed up for 24 months. Clinical outcome measures comprised range of motion, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, and the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) Index. Radiological outcomes included the acromiohumeral interval and graft integrity on magnetic resonance imaging at one year. Logistic regression was used to determine whether SCR being undertaken as either a primary or revision procedure influenced functional outcomes or retear rate. Results The mean age at the time of surgery was 58 (range, 39-74) years for the study group and 60 (range, 48-70) years for the control group. Forward flexion improved from a mean of 117° (range, 7°-180°) preoperatively to 140° (range, 45°-170°) postoperatively ( P = .11), and external rotation increased from a mean of 31° (range, 0°-70°) preoperatively to 36° (range, 0°-60°) postoperatively ( P = .23). The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score improved ( P = 0) from a mean of 38 (range, 12-68) to 73 (range, 17-95), and the WORC Index improved ( P = 0) from a mean of 29 (range, 7-58) to 59 (range, 30-97). Following SCR, there was no significant change in the acromiohumeral interval. The graft was intact in 42% of cases on magnetic resonance imaging and none of the retears underwent further surgery. Compared to revision SCR, primary SCR resulted in a significant improvement in forward flexion ( P = .001), external rotation ( P = 0), and WORC Index ( P = .019). Logistic regression demonstrated that SCR performed as a revision procedure was associated with a higher retear rate ( P = .006) and worse forward flexion ( P = .009) and external rotation ( P = .008). Conclusion SCR using human dermal allograft following structural failure of a previous rotator cuff repair can lead to an improvement in clinical outcomes but the results are inferior to primary procedures.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it