Excellent functional outcomes in patients aged 40 years or older undergoing isolated rotator cuff repair for rotator cuff tears after primary traumatic anteroinferior shoulder dislocation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose To investigate the functional outcomes of patients over 40 years of age who underwent isolated rotator cuff (RC) repair (RCR) for full-thickness RC tears resulting from a primary traumatic anteroinferior shoulder dislocation and to compare these outcomes with a control group of patients who underwent RCR for instability-independent RC tears, with a minimum follow-up of two years. Materials and methods Patients aged 40 years and older were included for RCR following primary traumatic anteroinferior shoulder dislocation between 01/2012 and 06/2020 with a minimum follow-up of two years. Patients were excluded if they received an additional labral repair or capsular shift. Outcomes were compared to a control group of patients who underwent RCR without history of previous dislocations. Primary outcome measures included passive range of motion (ROM) as well as patient reported outcomes comprising the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) and Rowe score. Rates of re-dislocation were evaluated as secondary outcomes. Results Thirty-six patients were enrolled and divided into 2 groups ( n = 18, respectively). Demographic characteristics did not significantly differ ( p > 0.05). At final follow-up, patients affected by instability-related RC tears showed comparable functional outcomes in terms of WOSI (427.2 ± 238.9 instability group (IG) vs. 431.1 ± 252.1 control group (CG) ; p = 0.962) and Rowe (87.5 ± 12.0 IG vs. 91.1 ± 10.2 CG ; p = 0.339) scores as well as in terms of passive ROM (abduction: 88.1 ± 4.6° IG vs. 86.7 ± 11.5° CG ; p = 0.637, forward elevation: 87.8 ± 6.2° IG vs. 88.3 ± 5.1° CG ; p = 0.772, external rotation: 55.3 ± 10.5° IG vs. 50.8 ± 15.3° CG ; p = 0.312, internal rotation: 65.3 ± 8.5 IG vs. 68.8 ± 4.9 CG , p = 0.388). No patient experienced a re-dislocation. Conclusion Patients ≥ 40 years who underwent isolated RCR without labral repair or capsular shift for a concurrent RC tear after experiencing a primary traumatic anteroinferior shoulder dislocation, achieved favorable functional outcomes along with absence of re-dislocations. Study design Retrospective case series; Level of Evidence IV.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".