Outcomes Following Arthroscopic Repair of Posterior Labral Tears in Patients Older Than 35 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the results of arthroscopic management of posterior labral pathology in young athletes have been reported extensively in the literature, the clinical outcomes in older patients are unknown. This retrospective review included patients older than 35 years who underwent arthroscopic posterior labral repair. Functional outcome scores were collected, and subgroup analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of patient-specific factors. Forty-three patients met the inclusion criteria; average follow-up was 36.9 months (range, 24-54 months). Mean patient age at the time of surgery was 40.9 years (range, 35-57 years). Average outcome scores at final follow-up were Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Scale (QuickDASH), 19±22; Simple Shoulder Test (SST), 9.9±3; Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), 601±546; and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), 79.6%±23.4%. No significant differences in outcomes were observed in patients with preoperative symptomatic instability, active workers' compensation claims, or traumatic injury (P>.05). The presence of intraoperatively definable chondral damage (Outerbridge grade III or higher) was associated with significantly worse final functional outcomes (QuickDASH: 29 vs 11.9, P=.03; SST: 8.5 vs 10.9, P=.02; WOSI: 875 vs 407, P=.01; and SANE: 70.6% vs 86%, P=.05). One patient (2%) experienced a minor postoperative complication, and 3 patients (7%) required subsequent procedures: 2 total shoulder arthroplasties and 1 revision labral repair. The results of arthroscopic posterior labral repair in patients older than 35 years were variable and worse than those previously reported in younger patients. The presence of chondral damage at the time of the index procedure was a negative predictive factor. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(2):e305-e311.].
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".