Arthroscopic Treatment for Shoulder Instability with Glenoid Bone Loss Using Distal Tibia Allograft Augmentation - Short Term Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Background: The results of arthroscopic anterior labral (Bankart) repair have been shown to have high failure rate in patients with significant glenoid bone loss. Several reconstruction procedures using bone graft have been described to overcome the bone loss, including autogenous coracoid transfer to the anterior glenoid (Latarjet procedure) as well as iliac crest autograft and tibial allografts. In recent years, trends toward minimally invasive shoulder surgery along with improvements in technology and technique have led surgeons to expand the application of arthroscopic treatment. Purpose: This study aims to perform a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data to evaluate the clinical and radiological follow up of patient who underwent anatomic glenoid reconstruction using distal tibia allograft for the treatment of shoulder instability with glenoid bone loss at 1-year post operation time point. Methods: Between December 2011 and January 2015, 55 patients underwent arthroscopic stabilization of the shoulder by means of capsule-labral reattachment to glenoid ream and bony augmentation of glenoid bone loss with distal tibial allograft for recurrent instability of the shoulder. Preoperative and postoperative evaluation included general assessment by the western Ontario shoulder instability index (WOSI) questionnaire, preoperative and postoperative radiographs and CT scans. Results: Fifty-five patients have been evaluated with mean age of 29.73 years at time of the index operation. There were 40 males (mean age of 29.66) and 15 female (mean age of 29.93). Minimum follow up time was 12 months. The following adverse effects were recorded: none suffered from recurrent dislocation, 2 patients suffered from bone resorption but without overt instability, 1 patient had malunion due to screw fracture, none of the patients had nonunion. The mean pre-operative WOSI score was 36.54 and the mean postoperative WOSI score was 61.0. Conclusion: Arthroscopic stabilization of the shoulder with distal tibia allograft augmentation demonstrates promising result at 1year follow up.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".