Arthroscopic Treatment of Multidirectional Shoulder Instability With Minimum 270° Labral Repair: Minimum 2‐Year Follow‐up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze results of arthroscopic stabilization with labral repair in a subset of patients with multidirectional shoulder instability and frank labral tear. METHODS: A review of 13 patients (10 male and 3 female; mean age, 27.2 years) with multidirectional instability involving a labral tear of 270 degrees or greater requiring arthroscopic labral repair was performed at a mean follow-up of 56 months (range, 29 to 72 months). All patients were evaluated by use of the Short Form 12, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, Simple Shoulder Test, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, and visual analog pain scale. Physical examination included range of motion, strength testing, and stability testing. RESULTS: Of the 13 patients, 2 (15%) had recurrent instability after repair (subluxation or dislocation). Of the patients, 9 (69%) were completely satisfied, 2 (15%) were mostly satisfied, and 2 (15%) were completely unsatisfied. At final follow-up, the median scores were as follows: Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, 471; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, 96.7; Simple Shoulder Test score, 12; visual analog pain scale, 0; and Short Form 12 mental component/physical component, 57/44. There were no differences in range of motion compared with the opposite extremity. Cybex strength testing (Lumex, Ronkonkoma, NY) did show a statistically different difference in forward elevation (P < .005). There were no complications, and no patient has undergone reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic stabilization with labral repair in patients with multidirectional instability and a minimum 270 degrees labral pathology provided good results (85%) in terms of pain relief and clinical stability at a minimum 2-year follow-up.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".