All‐Arthroscopic Revision Eden‐Hybinette Procedure for Failed Instability Surgery: Technique and Preliminary Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe the technique of an all-arthroscopic Eden-Hybinette procedure in the revision setting for treatment of a failed instability procedure, particularly after failed Latarjet, as well as to present preliminary results of this technique. METHODS: Between 2007 and 2011, 18 shoulders with persistent instability after failed instability surgery were treated with an arthroscopic Eden-Hybinette technique using an autologous bicortical iliac crest bone graft. Of 18 patients, 12 (9 men, 3 women) were available for follow-up. The average follow-up was 28.8 months (range, 15 to 60 months). A Latarjet procedure was performed as an index surgery in 10 patients (83%). Two patients (17%) had a prior arthroscopic Bankart repair. RESULTS: Eight patients (67%) obtained a good or excellent result, whereas 4 patients (33%) reported a fair or poor result. Seven patients (58%) returned to sport activities. A positive apprehension test persisted in 5 patients (42%), including 2 patients (17%) with recurrent subluxations. The Rowe score increased from 30.00 to 78.33 points (P < .0001). The Walch-Duplay score increased from 11.67 to 76.67 points (P < .0001). The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score showed a good result of 28.71% (603 points). The average anterior flexion was 176° (range, 150° to 180°), and the average external rotation was 66° (range, 0° to 90°). Two patients (16.67%) showed a progression of glenohumeral osteoarthritic changes, with each patient increasing by one stage in the Samilson-Prieto classification. All 4 patients (33%) with a fair or poor result had a nonunion identified on postoperative computed tomography scan. CONCLUSIONS: An all-arthroscopic Eden-Hybinette procedure in the revision setting for failed instability surgery, although technically demanding, is a safe, effective, and reproducible technique. Although the learning curve is considerable, this procedure offers all the advantages of arthroscopic surgery and allows reconstruction of glenoid defects and restoration of shoulder stability in this challenging patient population. In our hands, this procedure yields good or excellent results in 67% of patients. Successful outcome is correlated with bony healing of the iliac crest graft to the glenoid. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".