Comparison of 1- and 3-Week Immobilization Following Arthroscopic Shoulder Stabilization: Results of a Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: We investigated the effects of 1 week and 3 weeks of absolute immobilization duration on pain, range of motion (ROM), shoulder function, and recurrence rate on shoulder arthroscopic anterior capsulolabral repair (AACR) patients. Method: Fifty shoulder AACR patients’ pain intensity, shoulder ROM, and function were evaluated 4, 8, and 12 weeks after surgery (1-week group: 26; 3-week group: 24 patients). Function was assessed with American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score at post-operative 12 weeks and final follow-up (average of post-operative 30 months). Whether there was a re-dislocation after surgery was also questioned at final follow-up. Results: Similar ROM were observed on both groups at the post-operative 4, 8, and 12 weeks ( p > 0.05). Pain intensities at rest ( p = 0.40), night ( p = 0.22), and during the activity ( p = 0.49) were also similar on both groups. Also, no difference was observed for function between the two groups ( p = 0.99). Only one re-dislocation was in the 3-week immobilization group. Conclusions: Both 1 week and 3 weeks of absolute immobilization demonstrated similar results in terms of shoulder ROM, pain, function, and recurrence rate after the shoulder AACR. Furthermore, earlier mobilization led to higher shoulder flexion at 4 weeks postoperatively. Either of the rehabilitation approaches can be adopted based on the patient’s situation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".