Arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction demonstrates its safety with short-term to medium-term results for anteroinferior shoulder instability: a systematic review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
What is already known► Arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction (AAGR) is a relatively recently described surgical treatment option for patients with shoulder instability and bone loss.► There are numerous technique papers and several studies with short-term to medium-term results.What are the new findings ► This study summarises the techniques that have been described in the literature for AAGR.► It also provides critical analysis of the results available to date.► It demonstrates that this is a safe procedure with results that encourage long-term study.► The observations from this review could help to guide future studies, particularly in terms of graft selection and fixation techniques in this evolving technique for managing shoulder instability.AbSTrACT Importance Glenoid bone loss can be associated with recurrent anterior shoulder instability and can lead to unsuccessful stabilisation procedures if not addressed.Objective The purpose of this study was to review the currently described techniques for arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction (AAGR) for anteroinferior shoulder instability and to analyse the results available to date.Evidence review A systematic literature search of three databases (PubMed, Embase and Scopus) was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify relevant articles.Any article describing a surgical technique and/or presenting results related to this technique was included.Quality appraisal was performed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies-of Interventions tool and the Institute of Health Economics Quality Appraisal of Case Series Studies Checklist.Findings Twenty-seven studies published between 2008 and 2019 were identified for inclusion.Clinical results were available for a total of 237 patients across all studies, with age range 16-67.Iliac crest autograft was used in 60% of patients.Iliac crest allograft and distal tibia allograft were used in 22% and 18% of patients, respectively.Distal clavicle autograft, lateral femoral autograft, glenoid allograft and synthetic graft were also described in cadaveric studies or technique papers without results.Capsuloligamentous repair was performed with suture anchors in 95% of patients, while 5% had no soft-tissue repair.Patient satisfaction was high (90%), with low rates of instability (5%).Clinical exam demonstrated satisfactory range of motion, with good outcomes when functional scores were assessed, including Rowe score, constant score, Walch-Duplay score, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI)and subjective shoulder value.Radiographic evaluation revealed high union rates (97%), but also high rates of resorption.Graft resorption rates averaged between 10% and 32%.Conclusions Current evidence demonstrates that AAGR is a safe procedure with good short-term to mediumterm results that is worthy of further study. Level of evidence Level IV, systematic review of level III and IV studies.Were patients recruited consecutively?Unclear Unclear Yes
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,015 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».