Radiological and clinical outcome of arthroscopic labral repair with all-suture anchors.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess radiological and clinical outcome after arthroscopic all--suture anchor labral repair. METHOD: 20 patients treated for anterior and superior labral instability (mean age 29, range 14-51 years) were assessed at a minimum follow-up time of 1 year (mean 19 months ; range, 12-28 months). Postoperative MRI scans were assessed by 3 independent radiologists. The radiological appearance of bone at the anchor-site was judged by the presence of cyst formation, tunnel widening (> 2 mm) or bone edema. Clinical outcome analysis included standard follow-up and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score (DASH), Constant Shoulder score and the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). RESULT: All patients were available for follow-up. In total, 58 all-suture anchors were implanted. None of the patients displayed large cyst formation. Small cysts were found in two patients (2 anchors). Tunnel widening was apparent in 3 patients (3 anchors) with an average widening of 3.3 mm (range 3-4 mm). Bone edema at the anchor-site was seen in 6 patients (8 anchors). The remaining 9 patients (45 anchors) did not display reactive bone changes. Clinical outcomes showed a WOSI of 70.6, a DASH of 18.9 and a Constant score of 89.3, and no recurrence of instability. CONCLUSIONS: Satisfying radiological and clinical outcome was observed after arthroscopic instability surgery using all-suture anchors. Imaging revealed good labral healing without important bony reactions or the formation of large cysts at early follow-up. Level of evidence : IV 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".