Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of immediate arthroscopic stabilization versus immobilization and rehabilitation in first traumatic anterior dislocations of the shoulder: Long‐term evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report the long-term results of a prospective randomized clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of immediate arthroscopic stabilization versus immobilization and rehabilitation after a first traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder. TYPE OF STUDY: Randomized clinical trial. METHODS: Forty subjects younger than 30 years with a first traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation were randomized to receive immediate anterior stabilization plus rehabilitation or immobilization followed by rehabilitation. Patients completed the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), and the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) questionnaires. RESULTS: At an average follow-up of 75 months, there was a significant difference in the rate of redislocation between the groups but no statistical significant difference in shoulder function with the ASES or the DASH. The mean difference between the 2 groups with the WOSI estimates a small, but clinically significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: It is recommended that immediate arthroscopic stabilization is the treatment of choice in a subset of patients who are younger than 30 years and are higher level athletes, and the timing for surgery is good or their sport is risky, i.e., rugby, football, kayaking, rock climbing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".