Inferior capsular shift operation for multidirectional instability of the shoulder in players of contact sports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the results of inferior capsular shift for multidirectional instability of the shoulder in athletes. METHODS: Multidirectional instability was surgically corrected in 53 shoulders in 47 athletes who engaged in contact sports. A history of major trauma was found in eight patients, the others having had minor episodes. Before surgery, all patients had complex combinations of instabilities. The surgical approach was selected according to the predominant direction of instability. RESULTS: Anterior inferior capsular shift was carried out in 37 shoulders, and anterior dislocation recurred in three. In one of these, it was anterior alone, one was anterior and inferior, and one was unstable in all three directions. After posterior inferior capsular shift in 16 shoulders, one dislocation occurred anteriorly and one posteriorly. With the anterior approach, four athletes could not return to sport. Two patients treated with the posterior approach could not return to sport. Of these six failures, five patients had had bilateral repairs. Successful repair based on the criteria of the American Shoulder and Elbow Association was achieved in 92% of anterior repairs and 81% of posterior repairs. Successful return to sport was noted in 82% of patients with anterior repairs, 75% with posterior repairs, and 17% with bilateral repairs. Overall, there were five subsequent dislocations, three in the anterior repair group (8%), and two in the posterior repair group (12%). CONCLUSIONS: Inferior capsular shift can successfully correct multidirectional instability in most players of contact sports, but the results in bilateral cases are poor.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".