Rotator Cuff Tears are Significantly More Frequent in Recurrent Shoulder Instability Patients With Initial Dislocation at Age 40 or Older
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate and compare the pathologies and clinical outcomes of patients with traumatic anterior shoulder instability who underwent arthroscopic stabilization at 40 years or older between shoulders with initial dislocation before age 40 years and at 40 years or after. METHODS: Shoulders that underwent arthroscopic stabilization for recurrent traumatic anterior shoulder instability at 40 years or older with a minimum of 2-year follow-up were included. The subjects were divided into 2 groups according to age at initial dislocation after propensity score matching to reduce potential bias: younger than 40 years (group 1) and 40 years or older (group 2). Radiographic findings, pathologies, clinical outcomes, and complications were compared between the groups. RESULTS: Group 1 included 56 shoulders in 56 patients (26 men and 30 women) with a mean age of 51 years (range, 40-77 years). Group 2 included 28 shoulders in 28 patients (13 men and 15 women) with a mean age of 51 years (range, 40-77 years). Glenoid bone loss was greater in group 1 than in group 2 (P = .004). Rotator cuff tears were more frequently observed in group 2 than in group 1 (P < .001). Both groups showed significant improvement in the West Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score (P < .001 for each) and flexion (P < .001 for each). The recurrence rate was 4% in group 1 and 7% in group 2. CONCLUSIONS: Rotator cuff tears are significantly more frequent in recurrent shoulder instability patients with initial dislocation at age 40 or older. Arthroscopic stabilization yielded a low recurrence rate and favorable outcomes with a good return-to-sport rate in patients 40 years or older. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative prognostic trial.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".