MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Chronic Rupture of the Pectoralis Major: Current Concepts and Various Surgical Repair Techniques – A Mini Review

2025· review· en· W4406227512 on OpenAlexaff
Coraline Zhiti, Igor Gossuin, Yoann Durand, Jonas Müller, Pierre-Xavier Daulouède, Sadat Mazreku

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Case Reports · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPectus Deformity Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCochrane LibraryNarrative reviewFixation (population genetics)SurgeryGold standard (test)MEDLINERandomized controlled trialIntensive care medicineRadiologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Various surgical repair techniques, including autograft and allograft reconstructions, have been reported for the management of chronic pectoralis major ruptures, but outcome reporting remains highly heterogeneous. This narrative review aimed to provide a deeper understanding of these techniques, emphasizing the need for larger-scale prospective trials to support evidence-based recommendations for surgeons. Materials and Methods: We conducted a search of PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Google Scholar for English-language articles published between 1822 and 2023, using the following keywords: "chronic pectoralis major ruptures," "chronic pectoralis major tears," and "patient outcomes." Results: Overall, more than 60 reported cases were retrieved, along with a few prospective studies and review articles. Based on the compiled literature, most pectoralis major tears tend to arise at the tendo-osseus junction. In the absence of contra-indications such as old age and multiple comorbidities, surgical intervention is considered the golden care standard. The most commonly performed repair techniques include suture anchor fixation, transosseous fixation (TOS), and cortical bone fixation. Among the three techniques, no significant differences in cyclic loading or load-to-failure properties of the constructs were recorded. In chronic cases, in which direct repair is not possible, various autograft and allograft reconstructions were described, with quite heterogeneous outcome reporting, rendering comparative analyses difficult. Conclusion: Currently, no single technique has been established as the gold standard for the treatment of chronic pectoralis major ruptures. The most commonly performed repair techniques include suture anchor fixation, TOS, and cortical bone fixation. In chronic cases where direct repair is not feasible, various autograft and allograft reconstructions are employed. There is a need for larger-scale prospective trials with standardized outcome reporting to develop evidence-based recommendations, providing surgeons with safe and effective guidelines for treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.348 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic Case ReportsSame topicPectus Deformity Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207