A Prospective Comparative Study of Arthroscopic Versus Mini‐Open Latarjet Procedure With a Minimum 2‐Year Follow‐up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare postoperative pain during the first postoperative week and the position of the coracoid bone block at the anterior aspect of the glenoid after the arthroscopic and the mini-open Latarjet procedure. The secondary purpose was to assess functional results and recurrence after at least 2 years of follow-up. METHODS: This comparative prospective study included patients who underwent a Latarjet-Bristow procedure for anterior shoulder instability in 2012. The Latarjet procedure was performed by a mini-open approach (G1) in one center and by an arthroscopic approach (G2) in the other. The main evaluation criterion was average shoulder pain during the first postoperative week assessed by the patient on a standard 10-cm visual analog scale (0-10). Secondary criteria were consumption of analgesics during the first week, the position of the coracoid bone block on radiograph and computed tomography scan at the 3-month follow-up and clinical outcomes (Western Ontario Score Index and new surgery) after at least 2 years of follow-up. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients were included, 22 G1 and 36 G2, 13 women and 45 men, mean age 26.9 ± 7.7 years. The mean follow-up was 29.8 ± 4.4 months. There was significantly less pain in the arthroscopic Latarjet group than in the mini-open group during the first postoperative week (2.5 ± 1.4 vs 1.2 ± 1.2, P = .002) with comparable consumption of analgesics (P > .05). The arthroscopic Latarjet procedure resulted in a more lateral coracoid bone block (P = .04) and a better equatorial position than the mini-open technique (P = .02). Three patients underwent revision surgery (1 recurrence [2.8%], 1 block fracture, 1 screw ablation) in the arthroscopic group, none in the mini-open group (P = .54). At the final follow-up, the Western Ontario Score Index score was good in all patients (G1: 78.5 ± 7.5% vs G2: 82.3 ± 7%, P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: This prospective comparative study showed that the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure was significantly less painful than the mini-open procedure during the first postoperative week. The clinical outcomes were comparable after at least 2 years of follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective comparative study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".