Comparison of clinical outcomes between plastic braces versus sponge abduction packs in the early rehabilitation period after rotator cuff repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study compares adjustable plastic braces fixed at 45° abduction versus sponge abduction packs for their effects on short-term pain and functional outcomes following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, while analyzing the feasibility of replacing sponge abduction packs with plastic braces. METHODS: A total of 48 patients were recruited between April and July 2024 and stratified by gender into 4 groups: plastic brace group and sponge abduction pack group (12 patients each). At 3 weeks post-operation, follow-up was conducted using the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) as the primary measure for shoulder joint function, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Range of Motion (ROM), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), and Short Form 12 (SF-12) as secondary measures for pain, mobility, sleep quality, and quality of life. RESULTS: A total of 44 patients were enrolled, 23 in the plastic brace group and 21 in the sponge abduction pack group. At 3 weeks postoperatively, significant between-group differences were observed in abduction angle (78.5 ± 7.9 vs. 72.9 ± 7.2, P = 0.02), whereas WORC scores showed no statistical significance (90.1 ± 24.0 vs. 71.8 ± 29.1, P = 0.22).In subgroup analysis by gender, the difference in WORC score was statistically significant between sponge abduction pack and plastic brace groups in females (70.0 ± 29.1 vs. 100.7 ± 19.6, P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: The use of a plastic brace instead of a sponge abduction pack after rotator cuff repair shows potential feasibility and results in a greater abduction angle in the early rehabilitation period. In addition, the plastic brace showed better clinical outcomes than the sponge abduction pack especially in females. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Center (ChiCTR2500095943),20,250,115.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".