Association of alcohol consumption and rotator cuff retear: a case control matched cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Failure of healing or retear after surgical repair of the rotator cuff tendons are still a problem and can cause ongoing shoulder pain and dysfunction. Compromised microcirculation as seen in regular alcohol consumption may lead to poor healing. PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes and tendon integrity of patients after rotator cuff repair with and without regular alcohol intake. STUDY DESIGN: Case control matched cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR), had regular alcohol intake (according to world health organization (WHO) definition of harmful alcohol consumption) and were at least 2 years postoperative were included, and matched according to age, sex, involved tendon, and tear size with patients who underwent ARCR without regular alcohol intake. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores were collected at final follow-up including the Constant Murley Score (CMS), Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Score (WORC), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and visual analog scale (VAS). Tendon integrity (maintained continuity: yes/no = full thickness) was assessed by ultrasound examination at final follow-up. Complications and revision surgeries are reported. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients (versus twenty-two matched-controls) were available for follow-up. There were two female (9%) and twenty male (91%) patients with a mean age of 66.6 years (standard deviation, 36-85 years). The mean follow-up was 4 years (standard deviation, 2-5 years) in the alcohol group and 5 years (standard deviation, 2-10 years) in the non-alcohol group. No differences in mean PRO scores between alcohol and non-alcohol groups were seen except VAS (0.5 (standard deviation, 0-5) vs. 1.6 (standard deviation, 0-8), (P = 0.049*) respectively). Intact tendon insertion was seen in 77% (17/22) for the alcohol group and 100% (22/22) for non-alcohol group, (P = 0.021*). One patient underwent revision surgery (5%) in the alcohol group due to a retear, no further peri- or postoperative complications were noticed. CONCLUSION: Patients with torn rotator cuff tendons benefited similarly from ARCR independently of their alcohol use concerning clinical presentation. However, significantly higher retear rates were recorded in the alcohol group.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".