Arthroscopic treatment of posterior shoulder instability: results in 35 patients (SS‐33)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Posterior shoulder instability is a diagnostic challenge and a poorly understood clinical problem. Due to the complexity and relative infrequency of diagnosis, several surgical techniques have been described to treat this disorder. The purposes of this study are to retrospectively evaluate arthroscopic posterior shoulder stabilization using a suture-anchor fixation technique, and to evaluate multiple preoperative and intraoperative variables as predictors of outcome. Materials and Methods: Thirty-five patients who underwent posterior arthroscopic shoulder stabilization with either suture anchors and/or suture plication from October 1999 through December 2002 were reviewed. All but one was male, all but one were active duty military, and the mean age was 25.5. Seven had failed prior surgical intervention. Demographic data was obtained, to include duration of symptoms, number and type of conservative modalities, preoperative evaluation of shoulder range of motion, translation, and instability testing. Shoulder outcomes rating scores were determined using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Rating Scale (ASES), the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), the Subjective Patient Shoulder Evaluation, and the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE). Results: Mean follow-up was 25 months. Overall, symptoms were improved and outcomes scores rated as good or excellent in 31 of 36 shoulders. Preoperative versus postoperative range of motion examination demonstrated improved values for flexion (172° vs. 165°, P > .05) and abduction (168° vs. 158°, P > .05). The amount of posterior translation averaged +3.4 (range 3+ to 4+) preoperatively versus +1.1 postoperatively (range 0+ to 2+), P < .001. There were five failures in the group medically separated from the military. Conclusions: The arthroscopic treatment of posterior shoulder instability is an effective means to improve symptoms associated with recurrent posterior subluxation of the shoulder. Careful attention to surgical technique and an understanding of the underlying pathology are critical for success.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".