FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1973238075> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1973238075 endingPage "112" @default.
• W1973238075 startingPage "106" @default.
• W1973238075 abstract "Background: It is widely accepted that most patients treated with rotator cuff repair do well regardless of the integrity of the repair. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to reexamine this concept and identify the factors affecting the outcomes of patients with a recurrent tear. Methods: A cohort of patients who had been treated with rotator cuff repair completed a survey regarding satisfaction with the operatively treated shoulder, physical activity, and shoulder function. Ultrasonography was performed to determine rotator cuff integrity. Patients were divided into three age categories: younger than fifty-five years, fifty-five to sixty-five years, and sixty-six years or older. The relationships of the outcomes to patient age, repair integrity, and other demographic factors were analyzed. Results: Forty-seven (26%) of the 180 enrolled patients had a retear, defined as a full-thickness defect. In each age category, the satisfaction, ASES (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons), and SST (Simple Shoulder Test) scores in the retear group were significantly poorer than those in the no-retear group (p < 0.05). Within the retear group, all three scores were significantly better in the oldest age category (p < 0.05); there were no significant differences among the age categories within the no-retear group (p > 0.05). Simple regression analysis showed that younger age, a Workers’ Compensation claim, and lower education level were significant predictors of poorer scores in patients with a retear (p < 0.05). Multiple regression analysis of the retear group showed that (1) lower education level and a Workers’ Compensation claim were independent predictors of a poorer satisfaction score; (2) lower education level, younger age, and a Workers’ Compensation claim were independent predictors of a poorer ASES score; and (3) lower education level was the only independent predictor of a poorer SST score (p < 0.01 for all). Conclusions: The presence of a retear negatively affected the clinical outcomes following rotator cuff repair. This finding refutes the widely held concept that patients typically do well regardless of the repair integrity following rotator cuff repair. In patients with a retear, nonanatomic factors including younger age, lower education level, and a Workers’ Compensation claim were associated with poorer outcomes. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. Peer Review This article was reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and one Deputy Editor, and it underwent blinded review by two or more outside experts. It was also reviewed by an expert in methodology and statistics. The Deputy Editor reviewed each revision of the article, and it underwent a final review by the Editor-in-Chief prior to publication. Final corrections and clarifications occurred during one or more exchanges between the author(s) and copyeditors." @default.
• W1973238075 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1973238075 creator A5009272048 @default.
• W1973238075 creator A5012956748 @default.
• W1973238075 creator A5031097601 @default.
• W1973238075 creator A5038701464 @default.
• W1973238075 creator A5041307557 @default.
• W1973238075 creator A5079929045 @default.
• W1973238075 creator A5080357853 @default.
• W1973238075 date "2014-01-15" @default.
• W1973238075 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W1973238075 title "Factors Affecting Satisfaction and Shoulder Function in Patients with a Recurrent Rotator Cuff Tear" @default.
• W1973238075 cites W1863138831 @default.
• W1973238075 cites W1917945624 @default.
• W1973238075 cites W1958905257 @default.
• W1973238075 cites W1995896269 @default.
• W1973238075 cites W1996614809 @default.
• W1973238075 cites W2016783674 @default.
• W1973238075 cites W2052179271 @default.
• W1973238075 cites W2111451063 @default.
• W1973238075 cites W2111912746 @default.
• W1973238075 cites W2116024004 @default.
• W1973238075 cites W2118052504 @default.
• W1973238075 cites W2118773207 @default.
• W1973238075 cites W2125238899 @default.
• W1973238075 cites W2135010724 @default.
• W1973238075 cites W2154541870 @default.
• W1973238075 cites W2228849844 @default.
• W1973238075 cites W2278008992 @default.
• W1973238075 cites W2330262040 @default.
• W1973238075 cites W2401912695 @default.
• W1973238075 cites W4245609486 @default.
• W1973238075 cites W4248332663 @default.
• W1973238075 cites W4253502356 @default.
• W1973238075 cites W4255097449 @default.
• W1973238075 doi "https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.l.01649" @default.
• W1973238075 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24430409" @default.
• W1973238075 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W1973238075 type Work @default.
• W1973238075 sameAs 1973238075 @default.
• W1973238075 citedByCount "123" @default.
• W1973238075 countsByYear W19732380752014 @default.
• W1973238075 countsByYear W19732380752015 @default.
• W1973238075 countsByYear W19732380752016 @default.
• W1973238075 countsByYear W19732380752017 @default.
• W1973238075 countsByYear W19732380752018 @default.
• W1973238075 countsByYear W19732380752019 @default.
• W1973238075 countsByYear W19732380752020 @default.
• W1973238075 countsByYear W19732380752021 @default.
• W1973238075 countsByYear W19732380752022 @default.
• W1973238075 countsByYear W19732380752023 @default.
• W1973238075 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1973238075 hasAuthorship W1973238075A5009272048 @default.
• W1973238075 hasAuthorship W1973238075A5012956748 @default.
• W1973238075 hasAuthorship W1973238075A5031097601 @default.
• W1973238075 hasAuthorship W1973238075A5038701464 @default.
• W1973238075 hasAuthorship W1973238075A5041307557 @default.
• W1973238075 hasAuthorship W1973238075A5079929045 @default.
• W1973238075 hasAuthorship W1973238075A5080357853 @default.
• W1973238075 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W1973238075 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W1973238075 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W1973238075 hasConcept C2775944032 @default.
• W1973238075 hasConcept C2776511800 @default.
• W1973238075 hasConcept C2778275304 @default.
• W1973238075 hasConcept C2781184374 @default.
• W1973238075 hasConcept C2984185122 @default.
• W1973238075 hasConcept C66938386 @default.
• W1973238075 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1973238075 hasConcept C72563966 @default.
• W1973238075 hasConceptScore W1973238075C126322002 @default.
• W1973238075 hasConceptScore W1973238075C127413603 @default.
• W1973238075 hasConceptScore W1973238075C141071460 @default.
• W1973238075 hasConceptScore W1973238075C2775944032 @default.
• W1973238075 hasConceptScore W1973238075C2776511800 @default.
• W1973238075 hasConceptScore W1973238075C2778275304 @default.
• W1973238075 hasConceptScore W1973238075C2781184374 @default.
• W1973238075 hasConceptScore W1973238075C2984185122 @default.
• W1973238075 hasConceptScore W1973238075C66938386 @default.
• W1973238075 hasConceptScore W1973238075C71924100 @default.
• W1973238075 hasConceptScore W1973238075C72563966 @default.
• W1973238075 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W1973238075 hasLocation W19732380751 @default.
• W1973238075 hasLocation W19732380752 @default.
• W1973238075 hasOpenAccess W1973238075 @default.
• W1973238075 hasPrimaryLocation W19732380751 @default.
• W1973238075 hasRelatedWork W1983371565 @default.
• W1973238075 hasRelatedWork W2003736806 @default.
• W1973238075 hasRelatedWork W2116860197 @default.
• W1973238075 hasRelatedWork W2140174911 @default.
• W1973238075 hasRelatedWork W2147160167 @default.
• W1973238075 hasRelatedWork W2162707291 @default.
• W1973238075 hasRelatedWork W2315908986 @default.
• W1973238075 hasRelatedWork W2412438034 @default.
• W1973238075 hasRelatedWork W2807311925 @default.
• W1973238075 hasRelatedWork W3113600348 @default.
• W1973238075 hasVolume "96" @default.
• W1973238075 isParatext "false" @default.

• next