Comparison of Arthroscopic Osteochondral Substitute Grafting and Remplissage for Engaging Hill-Sachs Lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The optimum management for recurrent glenohumeral instability with significant humeral head defects remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes and recurrence rates between patients who underwent osteochondral substitute grafting and patients who underwent remplissage to treat recurrent shoulder instability from an engaging Hill-Sachs defect with a Bankart lesion. Twenty consecutive patients who underwent remplissage and 19 consecutive patients who underwent osteochondral substitute grafting with Bankart repair were studied. Mean follow-up was 29.6 months for the remplissage group and 32.1 months for the osteochondral substitute grafting group. All patients had an engaging Hill-Sachs lesion, and indications for surgery were identical between groups. Three postoperative recurrences occurred in the remplissage group and 6 occurred in the osteochondral substitute grafting group (P=.18). Nineteen patients in the remplissage group and 7 patients in the osteochondral substitute grafting group had a large humeral head defect. Patients in the remplissage group had better Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index [WOSI] scores than those in the osteochondral substitute grafting group for large lesions (74.7 vs 50.4, respectively), although they were not statistically significant (P=.077). After controlling for age, sex, lesion size, and follow-up differences, the remplissage group reported significantly better WOSI scores (P=.016). This study demonstrated a potential advantage of remplissage compared with osteochondral synthetic grafting in patients who experienced recurrent anterior shoulder instability, particularly in shoulders with a large humeral head defect.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".