Radiographic Analysis of the Hill‐Sachs Lesion in Anteroinferior Shoulder Instability After First‐Time Dislocations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify the relation between the Hill-Sachs (H-S) angle and arm position at the time of the initial dislocation, and to see if this correlates with the glenoid track. METHODS: A total of 102 patients (89 male patients, 87.2%), with a mean age of 32 years (range, 17 to 38 years), were divided into 2 groups, abduction (ABD) and adduction (ADD), dependent on the position of the arm at the time of the instability event. All patients were evaluated with bilateral computed tomography scans (3-dimensional) to define the H-S position on the glenoid track and to measure the H-S angle. One-way analysis of variance was used to compare the H-S angle between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Dislocation occurred in ABD in 45 patients (44.1%) and in ADD in 57 (55.9%). The H-S angle was 32.4° ± 4.7° in the ABD group versus 16.1° ± 2.9° in the ADD group. All patients' injuries were "on-track" glenoid injuries in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified a difference in the H-S angle relative to arm position at the time of initial dislocation. Patients whose injury occurred in the ABD position showed a higher H-S angle, leading to an increased risk of engagement, because the long axis of the H-S lesion is parallel to the glenoid in a position of function. Thus arm position at the time of the initial instability event may be a risk factor for engagement and higher risk of recurrence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, prognostic case series.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".