Outcomes of Latarjet Versus Distal Tibia Allograft for Anterior Shoulder Instability Repair: A Matched Cohort Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anterior glenoid reconstruction with fresh distal tibia allograft (DTA) has been described for management of recurrent shoulder instability, with encouraging early outcomes; however, no comparative data with the Latarjet procedure are available. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between patients undergoing DTA and a matched cohort of patients undergoing Latarjet. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A review was conducted of prospectively collected data for patients with a minimum 15% anterior glenoid bone loss who underwent shoulder stabilization via either the DTA or Latarjet procedure and had a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Consecutive patients undergoing DTA were matched in a 1-to-1 format to patients undergoing Latarjet by age, body mass index, history of contact sports, and number of previous shoulder operations. Patients were evaluated pre- and postoperatively with a physical examination and the following outcome assessments: Simple Shoulder Test, visual analog scale, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation. Complications, reoperations, and episodes of recurrent instability were analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed with Student t tests, with P < .05 considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients (50 Latarjet, 50 DTA) with a mean ± SD age of 25.6 ± 6.1 years were analyzed at 45 ± 20 months (range, 24-111) after surgery. Thirty-two patients (64%) in each group underwent prior ipsilateral shoulder surgery (range, 1-3). Patients undergoing DTA had significantly greater glenoid bone loss defects when compared with patients undergoing Latarjet (28.6% ± 7.4% vs 22.4% ± 10.3%, P = .001). Patients in both groups experienced significant improvements in all outcome scores after surgery ( P < .05 for all). No significant differences were found in postoperative scores between the Latarjet and DTA groups: visual analog scale (0.67 ± 0.97 vs 1.83 ± 2.31), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (91.06 ± 8.78 vs 89.74 ± 12.66), Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (74.30 ± 21.84 vs 89.69 ± 5.50), or Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (80.68 ± 7.21 vs 90.08 ± 13.39) ( P > .05 for all). However, patients in the Latarjet group had superior Simple Shoulder Test outcomes ( P = .011). There were 10 complications (10%) for the entire cohort, including 5 in the Latarjet group (3 of which required reoperation) and 5 in the DTA group (3 of which required reoperation). The overall recurrent instability rate was 1% (1 patient). CONCLUSION: Fresh DTA reconstruction for recurrent anterior shoulder instability results in a clinically stable joint with similar clinical outcomes as the Latarjet procedure. Longer-term studies are needed to determine if these results are maintained over time.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".