Long Term Outcomes of Anterior Shoulder Instability in Throwers and Overhead Athletes at a Mean Follow-up of 15 years (240)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objectives: There is a paucity of literature regarding outcomes of anterior shoulder instability (ASI) in throwers and overhead athletes (OHA). The purpose of this study was to report the pathology, treatment strategies, and outcomes of ASI in throwers and overhead athletes utilizing an established US geographic population-based cohort. Methods: An established geographic database of more than 500,000 patients was used to identify athletes <40 years of age with ASI between 1994 and 2016. Medical records were reviewed to obtain demographics, type of sport, surgical details, and clinical outcomes. Patients were contacted after final clinical follow-up for patient reported outcomes (PRO). The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability (WOSI) score, return to sport at previous level of performance (RPP), rate of return to play (RTP) and time to RTP were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed comparing throwers to non-throwers and OHA to non-overhead athletes (NOHA). Results: The study population consisted of 171 patients, 114 NOHA and 57 OHA. Of the OHA, 40 were throwers. The mean follow-up was 14.7 ± 5.6 years for PRO’s and 11.7 ± 7.3 years for last clinical evaluation. No difference in overall instability events was seen in either group. Throwers were more likely to present with subluxations while non-throwers were more likely to present with frank dislocations. NOHA and non-throwers were more likely than OHA and throwers to have a history of trauma related to ASI, respectively ( P = <.001, P = .002). Throwers were more likely to undergo an open surgical procedure (45%) than non-throwers (15%) ( P = .038). The rate of recurrent instability between groups was similar. Throwers returned to sport at a lower rate than non-throwers, however this did not reach significance (64% vs 83%, P = .100). Throwers and OHA reported similar WOSI scores, RPP and time to RTP grouped by surgical or conservative management compared to non-throwers and NOHA, respectively. Conclusions: In a US cohort of patients, throwers and OHA had a similar number of instability events compared to non-throwers and NOHA, respectively. Non-throwers and NOHA were more likely to present with frank dislocation which is supported by the significantly higher rates of trauma in both groups. Notably, the WOSI score, RPP, rate of RTP and time to RTP showed no difference between throwers and OHA when compared to their non-throwing and NOHA counterparts.
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 | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».