The Modified Bristow Procedure for Anterior Shoulder Instability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many procedures have been proposed for the correction of anterior shoulder instability. Some of these procedures address the problem anatomically, such as the Bankart procedure, and some prevent instability nonanatomically, such as the Bristow-Latarjet procedure. A modified Bristow procedure was the procedure of choice for anterior shoulder instability among midshipmen at the United States Naval Academy from 1975 to 1979. HYPOTHESIS: The modified Bristow procedure for anterior shoulder instability provides good shoulder function and stability in the long term. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: There were 52 shoulders in 49 patients reviewed at a mean follow-up of 26.4 years. The Rowe score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index were used to assess outcomes. RESULTS: The mean Rowe score was 81.8 (range, 5-100), and the mean Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score was 82.9 (range, 30-100), with an overall Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation of 71.2% (37 of 52 shoulders) rated as good and excellent. The mean Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index was 376 of 2100 (range, 0-1560). Overall, recurrent instability occurred in 8 of 52 shoulders (15.4%), with recurrent dislocation in 5 shoulders (9.6%) and recurrent subluxation in 3 shoulders (5.8%). The mean time to recurrent dislocation was 7.0 years. CONCLUSION: This study represents the longest follow-up in the literature of the modified Bristow procedure. The authors have shown nearly 70% good and excellent results and recurrent instability comparable with other long-term follow-up studies of open instability procedures.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".