MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137815797 · doi:10.1177/1758573214550839

Functional outcome and the structural integrity of arthroscopic Bankart repair: a prospective trial

2014· article· en· W2137815797 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark Zhu, Simon W. Young, Peter C. Poon

Bibliographic record

VenueShoulder & Elbow · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLabrumBankart lesionSurgeryElbowArthrogramAnterior shoulderBankart repairRadiographyArthroscopyMagnetic resonance imagingShoulder jointSubluxationGlenoid labrumRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Recurrent anterior shoulder dislocations are common in young patients with Bankart lesions. Arthroscopic repair is an established treatment; however, recurrent instability occurs in up to 35% of patients. It is unclear whether recurrence is the result of a failure of the surgical repair to heal or a repeat injury. The aim of the present pilot study was to assess radiographic healing of Bankart lesions 6 months post surgical repair and identify any correlations between radiographic findings and subsequent recurrent dislocations. METHODS: Eighteen patients underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair for recurrent instability. Magnetic resonance (MR) arthrograms were obtained both pre-operatively and 6 months postoperatively. Standard T1 and T2 views were obtained along with an abduction and external rotation (ABER) view. Patients were followed for a minimum of 4 years for the risk of recurrence, and functional outcomes were obtained, including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Subjective Shoulder Scale, Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, Oxford Shoulder Instability Score and 12-Item Short Form Health Survey. Scores were correlated with pre-operative and postoperative MR findings. RESULTS: Six of 18 patients developed recurrent instability. We could not identify correlations between reconstructed labrum (labral bumper) position, failure at suture sites and ABER findings with recurrent instability or functional outcome. Paradoxically, there was a nonstatistically significant trend for patients with no clefts between the labrum and the glenoid at any points along the repair to have worse outcomes than patients with partial or complete clefts. CONCLUSIONS: In our pilot study, MR arthrogram was used to evaluate the labrum in detail 6 months postoperatively. Despite its proven ability to detect labral lesions, we were unable to demonstrate any features on postoperative MR arthrogram that predicted either functional outcome or recurrent instability. At 6 months post operation, functional recovery and the risk of recurrence may not depend on the anatomical appearance of the labrum alone.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueShoulder & ElbowSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207