Arthroscopic Latarjet Techniques: Graft and Fixation Positioning Assessed With 2‐Dimensional Computed Tomography Is Not Equivalent With Standard Open Technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To analyze graft and fixation (screw and EndoButton) positioning after the arthroscopic Latarjet technique with 2-dimensional computed tomography (CT) and to compare it with the open technique. METHODS: We performed a retrospective multicenter study (March 2013 to June 2014). The inclusion criteria included patients with recurrent anterior instability treated with the Latarjet procedure. The exclusion criterion was the absence of a postoperative CT scan. The positions of the hardware, the positions of the grafts in the axial and sagittal planes, and the dispersion of values (variability) were compared. RESULTS: The study included 208 patients (79 treated with open technique, 87 treated with arthroscopic Latarjet technique with screw fixation [arthro-screw], and 42 treated with arthroscopic Latarjet technique with EndoButton fixation [arthro-EndoButton]). The angulation of the screws was different in the open group versus the arthro-screw group (superior, 10.3° ± 0.7° vs 16.9° ± 1.0° [P < .001]; inferior, 10.3° ± 0.8° vs 15.7° ± 0.9° [P < .0001]). The angulation of the EndoButtons was 5.7° ± 0.5°; this was different from that of open inferior screws (P = .003). In the axial plane (level of equator), the arthroscopic techniques resulted in lateral positions (arthro-screw, 1.5 ± 0.3 mm lateral [P < .001]; arthro-EndoButton, 0 ± 0.3 mm lateral [P < .0001]) versus the open technique (0.9 ± 0.2 mm medial). At the level of 25% of the glenoid height, the arthroscopic techniques resulted in lateral positions (arthro-screw, 0.3 ± 0.3 mm lateral [P < .001]); (arthro-EndoButton, 0.7 ± 0.3 mm lateral [P < .0001]) versus the open technique (1.0 ± 0.2 mm medial). Higher variability was observed in the arthro-screw group. In the sagittal plane, the arthro-screw technique resulted in higher positions (55% ± 3% of graft below equator) and the arthro-EndoButton technique resulted in lower positions (82% ± 3%, P < .0001) versus the open technique (71% ± 2%). Variability was not different. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the position of the fixation devices and position of the bone graft with the arthroscopic techniques are statistically significantly different from those with the open technique with 2-dimensional CT assessment. In the sagittal plane, the arthro-screw technique provides the highest positions, and the arthro-EndoButton technique, the lowest. Overall, the mean position of the bone block with the open Latarjet technique in the axial plane is slightly medial to the joint line, as recommended. Conversely, with the arthroscopic techniques, the bone grafts are more lateral with a slight overhang. The main differences are observed in the dispersion of the values (more extreme positions) with the arthro-screw technique, given the acknowledged limitations. Despite the statistical significance, the clinical significance of these differences is yet unknown. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective 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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".