Comparative study between arthroscopic repair vs. débridement of Ellman grade II PASTA lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although débridement is typically recommended for the treatment of medium-sized 3-6 mm (Ellman grade II) partial-thickness articular-sided supraspinatus tendon avulsion (PASTA) lesions, this approach is associated with mixed results. The purpose of this study is to compare the postoperative outcomes between arthroscopic débridement vs. repair in Ellman grade II PASTA lesions. Methods: A retrospective study was performed in which 17 patients with a grade II PASTA lesion underwent arthroscopic débridement compared to 18 patients in whom conversion to full-thickness tear and repair was performed. Patients were evaluated preoperatively, at 6 months, 12 months and 24 months postoperatively. Shoulder range of motion and residual pain using the visual analog scale score were assessed. Constant-Murley and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores were also calculated. Results: < .001) scores. Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that repair of grade II PASTA lesions are associated with improved outcomes when compared to débridement. However, future studies with a larger sample size are needed to validate the results of this study to determine whether a change in the "commonly accepted" practice of débridement alone for grade II PASTA lesions should be considered.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".