A biomechanical assessment of superior shoulder translation after reconstruction of anterior glenoid bone defects: The Latarjet procedure versus allograft reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The coracoacromial ligament (CAL) is an important restraint to superior shoulder translation. The effect of CAL release on superior stability following the Latarjet is unknown; therefore, our purpose was to compare the effect of two Latarjet techniques and allograft reconstruction on superior instability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight cadaveric specimens were tested on a simulator. Superior translation was monitored following an axial force in various glenohumeral rotations (neutral, internal, and external) with and without muscle loading. Three intact CAL states were tested (intact specimen, 30% glenoid bone defect, and allograft reconstruction) and two CAL deficient states (classic Latarjet (classicLAT) and congruent-arc Latarjet (congruentLAT)). RESULTS: In neutral without muscle loading, a significant increase in superior translation occurred with the classicLAT as compared to 30% defect (P = 0.046) and allograft conditions (P = 0.041). With muscle loading, the classicLAT (P = 0.005, 0.002) and the congruentLAT (P = 0.018, 0.021) had significantly greater superior translation compared to intact and allograft, respectively. In internal rotation, only loaded tests produced significant results; specifically, classicLAT increased translation compared to all intact CAL states (P < 0.05). In external rotation, only unloaded tests produced significant results with classicLAT and congruentLAT allowing greater translations than intact (P ≤ 0.028). For all simulations, the allograft was not significantly different than intact (P > 0.05) and no differences (P = 1.0) were found between classicLAT and congruentLAT. DISCUSSION: In most simulations, CAL release with the Latarjet lead to increased superior humeral translation. CONCLUSION: The choice of technique for glenoid bone loss reconstruction has implications on the magnitude of superior humeral translation. This previously unknown effect requires further study to determine its clinical and kinematic outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".