MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086091962 · doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2014.08.009

Trans‐subscapularis Portal Versus Low‐Anterior Portal for Low Anchor Placement on the Inferior Glenoid Fossa: A Cadaveric Shoulder Study With Computed Tomographic Analysis

2014· article· en· W2086091962 on OpenAlexaff
Tim Dwyer, Massimo Petrera, Lawrence M. White, Ofir Chechik, David Wasserstein, Jaskarndip Chahal, Christian Veillette, Darrell Ogilvie‐Harris, John Theodoropoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronal planeShouldersCadaveric spasmMedicineNuclear medicineFossaComputed tomographicAnatomyOrthodonticsComputed tomographyRadiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of inserting a glenoid anchor at the 5:30 clockface position using a trans-subscapularis (TSS) portal versus a low anterior (LA) portal. METHODS: Five surgeons (T.D., J.C., C.V., D.J.O-H., J.S.T.) placed a single anchor in 20 fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders. In each of 2 shoulders, surgeons used an LA portal to insert the anchor, whereas in 2 shoulders a TSS portal was used. Surgeons were directed to place the anchor at the 5:30 position at an angle 45° to the glenoid surface (axial plane) and passing perpendicular to the glenoid rim in the coronal plane. Shoulders were then dissected and computed tomographic (CT) scans obtained. Anchor position relative to the clockface was documented by 2 blinded assessors, as was the angle of insertion in the axial and coronal planes. Statistical significance was calculated with a Student t test for paired samples (confidence interval [CI], 95%; significance, P < .05). RESULTS: The average deviation from the 5:30 position was 48 minutes (standard deviation [SD], 31 minutes) for the LA portal (average position, 4:42 o'clock) versus 28.5 minutes (SD, 19 minutes) for the TSS group (average position, 5:02 o'clock) (P = .15). The average angle of anchor insertion in the axial plane was 67.2° (SD, 19°) for the LA portal versus 62.8° (SD, 14°) for the TSS portal (P = .49), whereas the average angle of insertion in the coronal plane was 31.3° (SD, 14°) of inferior angulation in the LA group and 14.3° (SD, 8°) of inferior angulation in the TSS group (P = .009). Of the anchors inserted, 9 of 20 (45%) showed evidence of far-cortical perforation. No difference in cortical perforation was seen between the 2 portals, with perforation more likely with anchors inserted greater than 45° in the axial plane (8 of 20) than with those inserted less than 45° (1 of 20) (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a TSS portal improves the angle of approach to the inferior glenoid rim in comparison with an LA portal, reducing the acuity of the angle of insertion in the coronal plane. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The TSS portal is an option for surgeons performing arthroscopic Bankart repair using anchors low on the glenoid rim.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related SurgerySame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207