Distal Tibia Allograft Glenoid Reconstruction in Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability: Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability treated with fresh distal tibia allograft (DTA) glenoid reconstruction. METHODS: Consecutive patients with a minimum 15% anterior glenoid bone loss associated with recurrent anterior instability who underwent stabilization with DTA glenoid reconstruction were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were evaluated with the American Shoulder and Elbow Society score, Western Ontario shoulder instability index, and single numerical assessment evaluation score at a minimum 2 years after surgery. All patients also underwent postoperative imaging evaluation with computed tomography where graft incorporation and allograft angle were measured. Statistical analysis was performed with paired t-tests, with P < .05 considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 27 patients (100% male) with an average age of 31 ± 5 years and an average follow-up of 45 months (range, 30-66) were included. There were significant improvements in preoperative to postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Society score (63-91, P < .01), Western Ontario shoulder instability index (46% to 11% of normal, P < .01), and single numerical assessment evaluation score (50-90.5, P < .01) outcomes. Analysis of computed tomography data at an average 1.4 years postoperatively (available for 25 patients) showed an allograft healing rate of 89% (range, 80% to 100%), average allograft angle of 14.9° (range, 6.6° to 29.3°), and average allograft lysis of 3% (range, 0% to 25%). Grafts with lesser allograft angles (<15°) were better opposed to the anterior glenoid, showing superior healing and graft incorporation. There were no cases of recurrent instability. CONCLUSIONS: At an average follow-up of 45 months, fresh DTA reconstruction for recurrent anterior shoulder instability results in a clinically stable joint with excellent clinical outcomes and minimal graft resorption. Optimal allograft placement resulted in superior bony incorporation with the native 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".