Long-term Results After Arthroscopic Shoulder Stabilization Using Suture Anchors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic stabilization using suture anchors is widely used to restore stability after anterior shoulder dislocations and is associated with low recurrence rates in short-term follow-up studies. PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term follow-up after arthroscopic stabilization for traumatic recurrent anterior instability using suture anchors with emphasis on both redislocations and subjective shoulder function. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: We included 67 consecutive patients with 70 affected shoulders. After 8 to 10 years, patients were asked to report the presence and course of their redislocations. Subjective shoulder function was addressed using the Oxford Instability Score (OIS), the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), and the Simple Shoulder Test (SST). Patients rated their health status using the Short Form-36 (SF-36). RESULTS: Sixty-five patients with 68 affected shoulders (97%) were evaluated for follow-up; 35% reported a redislocation. Median shoulder function scores were 16 of 12 to 60, 22 of 0 to 210, and 12 of 0 to 12 for the OIS, WOSI, and SST, respectively. There was a significant difference in subjective function between patients with and without recurrent instability, respectively, 16 versus 24 for the OIS (P = .004), and 16 versus 47 for the WOSI (P = .05). We found a trend for an inverse relationship between the number of suture anchors and recurrent instability, with 2 having a higher recurrence rate than 3 or more (P = .06). Another trend was found with the presence of a Hill-Sachs defect slightly increasing the risk of a redislocation (P = .07). CONCLUSION: With a follow-up of 97%, about one third of the stabilized shoulders experienced at least one redislocation after 8 to 10 years. The presence of a Hill-Sachs defect and the use of less than 3 suture anchors might increase the chance of a redislocation. Patients without a redislocation have a significantly better shoulder function compared with patients with a redislocation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".