Acute Traumatic Posterior Shoulder Dislocation: MR Findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the appearance of lesions of osseous and soft-tissue structures of the glenohumeral joint on magnetic resonance (MR) images after first-time traumatic posterior shoulder dislocation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant, as appropriate, for the four institutions at which the involved patients were treated. Informed patient consent was obtained, were applicable. Thirty-six male patients (age range, 15-80 years; mean age, 40.2 years) with clinically documented first-time traumatic posterior shoulder dislocation were examined with MR arthrography (18 patients) or conventional shoulder MR imaging (18 patients). Causes of posterior shoulder dislocation were electric shock in one patient, seizure in one patient, and trauma in 34 patients. Hill-Sachs lesions, rotator cuff tears, biceps tendon abnormalities, posterior labrocapsular complex lesions, humeral head translation, and osseous glenoid version angle were evaluated. Spearman rank correlation and Student t test analyses were performed. RESULTS: In 31 (86%) of the 36 patients, a reverse Hill-Sachs lesion was found. Eleven (31%) patients had a reverse osseous Bankart lesion. Twelve full-thickness rotator cuff tears were seen in seven (19%) patients: four supraspinatus tendon, three infraspinatus tendon, and five subscapularis tendon tears. Six (17%) patients had biceps tendon abnormalities. Posterior labrocapsular complex tears were identified in 21 (58%) patients: 10 (48%) with posterior labral sleeve avulsions and 11 (52%) with reverse Bankart lesions. Twenty-seven (75%) patients had a retroverted scaphoglenoid angle (mean, 4.5 degrees ). The mean humeral translation distance relative to the osseous glenoid fossa was -4.8 mm; in 33 (92%) patients, this distance was translated posteriorly. CONCLUSION: The MR appearance of traumatic posterior shoulder dislocation was characterized by reverse Hill-Sachs lesions in 86% of patients and posterocaudal labrocapsular lesions in nearly 60% of patients. Full-thickness rotator cuff tears were seen in approximately 20% of patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".