Exploring the level of association between rotator cuff tears and acromiohumeral distance: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Rotator cuff tears (RCTs) are a prevalent cause of shoulder pain and dysfunction, often associated with narrowing of the acromiohumeral distance (AHD). AHD is commonly used as a valuable marker of rotator cuff integrity, yet its diagnostic and prognostic value remains debated. This systematic review aims to explore the relationship between AHD and RCTs, with consideration of tear type, imaging modality, and tendon involvement. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science was conducted to identify comparative studies published between 2000 and 2024. Eligible studies included adults (≥18 years) with chronic or acute RCTs (partial or full-thickness) and healthy controls. Studies were required to report AHD measurements using magnetic resonance imaging, radiographs, or ultrasound in an upright, neutral shoulder position. Risk of bias was assessed using the Hoy et al tool. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Results: Across studies, AHD was consistently defined as the shortest distance between the acromion and humeral head. Imaging modalities varied, with magnetic resonance imaging most commonly used. While several studies reported significantly reduced AHD in RCTs, particularly full-thickness and multi-tendon tears, others found no significant differences compared to controls. Mean AHD values ranged from ∼5.9 mm in massive or multi-tendon tears to ∼9.7 mm in healthy controls. Multi-tendon involvement was consistently associated with greater AHD reduction than single-tendon tears. The reliability of AHD measurement was high across modalities. However, heterogeneity in sample size, imaging tools, and lack of control for confounding factors (eg, body mass index, activity level, muscle atrophy) limited comparability. Conclusion: AHD tends to decrease with increasing RCT severity, particularly in multi-tendon involvement, supporting its relevance in clinical assessment. However, inconsistencies across studies highlight the need for standardized imaging protocols and consideration of confounders. While AHD shows promise as a diagnostic and prognostic marker, it should not be used in isolation. Future longitudinal and dynamic imaging studies are recommended to better understand its clinical utility.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 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".