Primary Rotator Cuff Bridging Reconstruction Shows Better Clinical and Radiographic Results Than Revision Bridging Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To evaluate the outcome of revision rotator cuff bridging reconstruction (BR) as compared to primary BR in a large cohort of patients. Methods A retrospective chart review was conducted for patients who underwent BR using dermal allograft for large/massive rotator cuff tears between 2010 and 2018. Patients who completed Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) and Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores both pre‐ and postoperatively were included. Pre‐ and postoperative magnetic resonance imaging scans were compared to assess for differences in fatty infiltration, muscle atrophy, and graft status. Results Eighty patients met the inclusion criteria, including 43 patients who underwent BR as a primary surgery and 37 patients who underwent revision BR. The mean follow‐up duration was 5.7 ± 1.9 years in the primary group and 5.8 ± 2.0 years in the revision group. Both WORC and DASH scores significantly improved from pre‐ to postoperatively for both the primary and revision groups ( P < .05). The primary group had significantly better postoperative WORC and DASH scores at 6 months, 1 year, and final follow‐up ( P < .05). Failure rate of the graft was higher in the revision group compared to primary group (14.3% vs 6.1%, respectively; P = .337), and the amount of fatty infiltration of supraspinatus and infraspinatus muscles significantly improved in patients who received primary BR compared to revision BR ( P < .05). Conclusions BR using dermal allograft for large/massive irreparable rotator cuff tears showed improvement of functional outcomes, with primary cases resulting in better improvement in patient‐reported outcomes compared to revision cases. Primary BR was also associated with better postoperative fatty infiltration of supraspinatus and infraspinatus muscles. Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective cohort study.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".