Arthroscopic repair of type II SLAP lesions: Clinical and anatomic follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The aim was to evaluate the clinical and anatomic outcome of arthroscopic repair of type II SLAP lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The senior author performed isolated repairs of 25 type II SLAP lesions in 25 patients with a mean age of 40.0 ± 12 years. All tears were repaired using standard arthroscopic suture anchor repair to bone. All patients were reviewed using a standardized clinical examination by a blinded, independent observer, and using several shoulder outcome measures. Patients were evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging arthrogram at a minimum of 1-year postoperatively. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Two-tailed paired t-test were used to determine significant differences in preoperative and postoperative clinical outcomes scores. In addition, a Fisher's exact test was used. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 54-month, the mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Index (ASES) scores improved from 52.1 preoperatively to 86.1 postoperatively (P < 0.0001) and the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) scores from 7.7 to 10.6 (P < 0.0002). Twenty-two out of the 25 patients (88%) stated that they would have surgery again. Of the 21 patients who had postoperative magnetic resonance imaging arthrographys (MRAs), 9 patients (43%) demonstrated dye tracking between the labrum bone interface suggestive of a recurrent tear and 12 patients (57%) had a completely intact repair. There was no significant difference in ASES, SST, and patient satisfaction scores in patients with recurrent or intact repairs. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic repair of type II SLAP lesions demonstrated improvements in clinical outcomes. However, MRA imaging demonstrated 43% of patients with recurrent tears. MRA results do not necessarily correlate with clinical outcome.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".