Arthroscopic Anterior Stabilization and Posterior Capsular Plication for Anterior Glenohumeral Instability: A Report of 71 Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Results after arthroscopic treatment of anterior glenohumeral instability continue to improve as advancements are made in instrumentation and techniques. We present 71 cases of anterior glenohumeral instability treated with arthroscopic anterior stabilization and posterior capsular plication. TYPE OF STUDY: Case series. METHODS: Arthroscopic anterior reconstruction and posterior inferior "pinch-tuck" capsular plication was performed in 71 shoulders (67 patients) with anterior glenohumeral instability. The average follow-up was 33.3 months (range, 20 to 24 months). Outcomes were assessed by completion of the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Western Ontario Shoulder Instability (WOSI) Index, a Rowe score, and a subjective self-assessment shoulder instability form. RESULTS: Postoperative dislocation occurred in 5 patients (7%). The average SST score was 11.2 (12 maximum) and the average WOSI Index was 85.6% (range, 30.6% to 100%). The average Rowe score was 85. Ninety-seven percent of patients reported they were able to return to their normal activity level, and 90% of patients reported that they were able to return to their previous level of athletics; 100% of patients reported that they were doing better than before surgery and were satisfied with their result; 100% of patients reported that they would undergo the procedure again. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic anterior stabilization using suture anchors, combined with posterior capsular suture plication, is a reliable treatment option for anterior glenohumeral instability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".