MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2517964025 · doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2016.05.041

Anatomical Evaluation of the Proximity of Neurovascular Structures During Arthroscopically Assisted Acromioclavicular Joint Reconstruction: A Cadaveric Pilot Study

2016· article· en· W2517964025 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder and Clavicle Injuries
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityKingston General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurovascular bundleMedicineSuprascapular nerveAcromioclavicular jointCadaveric spasmCoracoclavicular ligamentSurgeryBrachial plexus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the safety of an arthroscopic technique for acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) reconstruction by investigating its proximity to important neurovascular structures. METHODS: Six shoulders from 4 cadaveric specimens were used for ACJ reconstruction in this study. The procedure consists of performing an arthroscopic acromioclavicular (AC) reduction with a double button construct, followed by coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction without drilling clavicular tunnels. Shoulders were subsequently dissected in order to identify and measure distances to adjacent neurovascular structures. RESULTS: The suprascapular artery and nerve were the closest neurovascular structures to implanted materials. The mean distances were 8.2 (standard deviation [SD] = 3.6) mm to the suprascapular nerve and 5.6 (SD = 4.2) mm to the suprascapular artery. The mean distance of the suprascapular nerve from implants was found to be greater than 5 mm (P = .040), while the distance to the suprascapular artery was not (P > .5). Neither difference was statistically significant (P = .80 for artery; P = .08 for nerve). CONCLUSIONS: Mini-open, arthroscopically assisted ACJ reconstruction safely avoids the surrounding nerves, with no observed damage to any neurovascular structures including the suprascapular nerve and artery, and may be a viable alternative to open techniques. However, surgeons must remain cognizant of possible close proximity to the suprascapular artery. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study represents an evaluation of the safety and feasibility of a minimally invasive ACJ reconstruction as it relates to the proximity of neurovascular structures.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score0.467

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it