Traumatic and Atraumatic Rotator Cuff Tears Have the Same Rates of Healing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background To examine whether traumatic rotator cuff repairs (RCRs) differ in postoperative rotator cuff tendon integrity and functional outcomes from degenerative RCRs. Methods RCRs performed by a single surgeon were retrospectively identified. The inclusion criteria were repairable Goutallier grades 0 to 2 full‐thickness rotator cuff tears. Demographic and clinical data as well as radiological results were compared. A multivariate logistic regression of the of patient acceptable symptom state for American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score was performed to evaluate whether the origin of tear led to a different relative risk (RR) independently from tear and surgical characteristics. Results A total of 616 consecutive shoulders (304 traumatic and 312 degenerative) were finally included. Traumatic ruptures presented a greater distribution of male (72% vs 51%, P < .001) and younger patients (53 vs 57 years, P < .001), as well as earlier onset of symptoms (3 vs 15 months, P < .001), reduced range of motion in preoperative assessment for forward elevation (130° vs 150°, P < .001), and slightly greater preoperative ASES (46.5 ± 19.7 vs 50.0 ± 18.0, P = .022) and Constant (47.0 ± 20.2 vs 52.0 ± 18.9, P = .001) scores. Degenerative tears presented a lower proportion of grade 3 tendon coronal retraction (11% vs 18%, P = .031). Postoperative tendon integrity at 6 months was comparable for both groups, predominantly Sugaya types 1 and 2 (91% traumatic; 92% degenerative, P = .371). Both groups exhibited favorable outcomes in range of motion and postoperative functional scores at last follow‐up. The multivariate regression confirmed that the tear origin was not significantly associated with patient acceptable symptom state achievement ( P = .201) but rather with greater preoperative ASES score (RR, 1.01), men (RR, 1.16) and workers’ compensation (RR, 0.65) ( P < .05). Conclusions Traumatic cases were frequent, involved younger patients, more frequently affected the anterior rotator cuff, and were associated with more severe tendon retraction. Traumatic and degenerative RCRs lead to comparable clinical and radiologic results. Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective comparative 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 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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".