Radiographic Analysis of Glenoid Morphology after Arthroscopic Latarjet vs Distal Tibial Allograft in the Treatment of Anterior Shoulder Instability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The Latarjet procedure for autograft transposition of coracoid to the anterior rim of the glenoid remains the most common procedure for reconstruction of the glenoid after shoulder instability. The anatomic glenoid reconstruction using distal tibial allograft has gained popularity and is suggested to better match the normal glenoid size and shape. However, there is concern for decreased healing and increased resorption using an allograft bone. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the arthroscopic reconstruction of the glenoid with respect to the size, shape, healing, and resorption of autograft coracoid vs allograft distal tibia. Methods: A retrospective review of 50 consecutive patients who had an arthroscopic boney reconstruction of the glenoid (13 coracoid; 37 distal tibial), diagnosed with anterior shoulder instability, and CT confirmed glenoid bone loss >20%. Pre-and post-operative CT scans were reviewed by two fellowship trained musculoskeletal radiologists for: graft position, glenoid concavity, cross sectional area, width, version, total area, osseous union, and graft resorption. Results: Graft nonunion was seen in 3 (23.07%) of the coracoid patients, and in 2 (5.4%) of the tibial allograft patients (OR 5.25; 95% CI: 0.768-35.89). Odds ratios comparing allograft to coracoid for overall resorption was 5.00 (CI: 1.276-19.597). Graft resorption greater than 50% was seen in 3 (8.11%) of the allografts and was absent within the coracoid patients. Graft resorption lesser than 50% was greater in both groups with 27 (72.97%) allograft and 6 (46.15%) coracoid patients. However, no statistically significant difference was found between the two procedures regarding AP diameter of graft (p=0.818) or graft cross sectional area (p=0.797). Conclusion: Arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction using distal tibial allograft showed greater boney union but higher resorption compared to coracoid autograft. Even so, there was no statistically significant difference between the two procedures regarding final graft surface area and size of grafts. These short-term results suggest distal tibial allograft as an alternative to coracoid autograft in the recreation of glenoid boney morphology.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".