MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109814359 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.j.01983

Arthroscopic Bankart Repair and Capsular Shift for Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability

2012· article· en· W2109814359 on OpenAlex
Issaq Ahmed, Fiona Ashton, C. M. Robinson

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBankart repairAnterior shoulderSurgeryBankart lesionArthroscopyRetrospective cohort studyDashComplicationProportional hazards model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic Bankart repair and capsular shift is a well-established technique for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes following arthroscopic Bankart repair and capsular shift and to identify risk factors that are predictive of recurrence of glenohumeral instability. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of a prospectively collected database consisting of 302 patients who had undergone arthroscopic Bankart repair and capsular shift for the treatment of recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability. The prevalence of patient and injury-related risk factors for recurrence was assessed. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the predicted probability of recurrence within two years. The chief outcome measures were the risk of recurrence and the two-year functional outcomes assessed with the Western Ontario shoulder instability index (WOSI) and disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) scores. RESULTS: The rate of recurrent glenohumeral instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair and capsular shift was 13.2%. The median time to recurrence was twelve months, and this complication developed within one year in 55% of these patients. The risk of recurrence was independently predicted by the patient's age at surgery, the severity of glenoid bone loss, and the presence of an engaging Hill-Sachs lesion (all p < 0.001). These variables were incorporated into a model to provide an estimate of the risk of recurrence after surgery. Varying the cutoff level for the predicted probability of recurrence in the model from 50% to lower values increased the sensitivity of the model to detect recurrences but decreased the positive predictive value of the model to correctly predict failed repairs. There was a significant improvement in the mean WOSI and DASH scores at two years postoperatively (both p < 0.001), but the mean scores in the group with recurrence were significantly lower than those in the group without recurrence (both p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified factors that are independently associated with a higher risk of recurrence following arthroscopic Bankart repair and capsular shift. These data can be useful for counseling patients undergoing this procedure for the treatment of recurrent glenohumeral instability and individualizing treatment options for particular groups of patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic level I. See Instructions for authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.313
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