A cadaveric assessment of the risk of nerve injury during open subpectoral biceps tenodesis using a bicortical guidewire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the risk of neurological injury from the placement of a bicortical guidewire during subpectoral biceps tenodesis. METHODS: Ten forequarter cadaver specimens were evaluated. A bicortical guidewire was placed, and measurements to important local neurological structures were made with digital calipers at open dissection. RESULTS: The mean (range, SD) distances from the guidewire to the respective nerves was as follows: axillary nerve posteriorly, 15.7 mm (10-22 mm, 3.4); axillary nerve laterally, 18.7 mm (12-27 mm, 4.3); radial nerve posteriorly, 26.2 mm (16-35 mm, 7.0); radial nerve medially, 25 mm (16-33 mm, 4.4); and musculocutaneous nerve, 20.1 mm (12-26 mm, 5.2). CONCLUSIONS: There has been some disagreement in the literature regarding the proximity of a bicortical guidewire to the axillary nerve posteriorly. The results of this study concur with reports from several other authors and demonstrate that this nerve is at risk of iatrogenic injury when using this technique. The clinical relevance of this work is to allow surgeons to better understand the proximity of the nerve to a bicortical guidewire and to highlight that this risk is avoided with a unicortical technique.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".