Regional Failure Mapping after Superior Capsular Reconstruction

Authors

  • Caleb Morgan Author
  • Ryan Foster Author
  • Dylan Hayes Author

Keywords:

regional failure, graft integrity, superior capsular reconstruction, event ascertainment, imaging reliability

Abstract

A binary structural outcome can conceal where a graft-related change occurred, when it became observable, and which part of the construct was assessed. This conceptual methods synthesis develops a regional failure record for superior capsular reconstruction. A graft-biology review motivates connecting local incorporation questions with observed structural events. The proposed framework distinguishes region definition, image acquisition, reader agreement, event timing, patient-reported outcomes, and subsequent treatment. It treats regional labels as measurements with uncertainty rather than as direct proof of a failure mechanism. Repeated-measure and competing-risk methods are considered only after the event and observation process are specified. No images, clinical records, or failure rates are newly analyzed. The contribution is an auditable event map that can support future mechanistic comparisons without converting every structural finding into the same clinical endpoint.

References

  1. Cao, Mingde, et al. "Superior capsule reconstruction graft selection: The influence of biological properties of grafts on healing and re-tearing." Bioengineering 12.9 (2025): 942.
  2. Wang, J., Xu, G., Tong, H., Xu, G., & Chen, Y. (2026, May). Fractal Generative Distillation. In ICASSP 2026-2026 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) (pp. 20521-20525). IEEE.
  3. Mihata, Teruhisa, et al. "Clinical Results of Arthroscopic Superior Capsule Reconstruction for Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tears." Arthroscopy, vol. 29, no. 3, 2013, pp. 459-470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2012.10.022.
  4. Roach, Kathryn E., et al. "Development of a Shoulder Pain and Disability Index." Arthritis & Rheumatism, vol. 4, no. 4, 1991, pp. 143-149. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.1790040403.
  5. Bland, J. Martin, and Douglas G. Altman. "Statistical Methods for Assessing Agreement between Two Methods of Clinical Measurement." The Lancet, vol. 327, no. 8476, 1986, pp. 307-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8.
  6. Koo, Terry K., and Mae Y. Li. "A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research." Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, vol. 15, no. 2, 2016, pp. 155-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012.
  7. Laird, Nan M. and James H. Ware. “Random-Effects Models for Longitudinal Data.” Biometrics, vol. 38, no. 4, 1982, pp. 963. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529876.
  8. Fine, Jason P., and Robert J. Gray. "A Proportional Hazards Model for the Subdistribution of a Competing Risk." Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 94, no. 446, 1999, pp. 496-509. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1999.10474144.
  9. von Elm, Erik, et al. "The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies." PLoS Medicine, vol. 4, no. 10, 2007, pp. e296. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296.
  10. Wilkinson, Mark D., et al. "The FAIR Guiding Principles for Scientific Data Management and Stewardship." Scientific Data, vol. 3, 2016, article 160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18.
  11. White, Halbert. “A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity.” Econometrica, vol. 48, no. 4, 1980, pp. 817–838. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912934.

Downloads

Published

2026-10-29

Issue

Vol. 2 No. 10 (2026): October 2026

Section

Reviews and Perspectives

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Caleb Morgan, Ryan Foster, Dylan Hayes

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.