Comparative Systematic Review of Fixation Methods of the Coracoid and Conjoined Tendon in the Anterior Glenoid to Treat Anterior Shoulder Instability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coracoid process transfer for the treatment of recurrent glenohumeral dislocations is a safe and reliable procedure; however, there is no consensus as to which is the best method, the Bristow or Latarjet procedure. PURPOSE: To analyze the results of coracoid process transfer for the treatment of recurrent glenohumeral dislocations and to compare the results of this transfer between the Bristow and Latarjet techniques. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: The databases surveyed for this review included J-STAGE; Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialized Register; Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials; MEDLINE; Ovid; Embase; Google Scholar; and CINAHL. Inclusion criteria consisted of (1) studies related to anterior glenohumeral dislocations treated with transfer of the coracoid process to the anterior glenoid rim and (2) studies that could provide data to perform at least 1 meta-analysis or other statistical evaluation. Titles and abstracts were reviewed for inclusion; thereafter, outcomes and the risk of bias were extracted. Statistical analyses were performed according to the nature of the data. When possible, the 95% CI was included. RESULTS: = .04). The mean loss of external rotation was 12.91° for the Bristow procedure (n = 1440 shoulders) and 11.70° for the Latarjet procedure (n = 243 shoulders). The mean quality-of-life outcome scores were as follows for the Bristow and Latarjet procedures, respectively: Rowe score, 92.06 and 89.33; Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score, 16.44% and 19.68%; Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, 93.28 and 92.00; and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, 91.00 and 89.90. CONCLUSION: Transferring the coracoid to the anteroinferior border of the glenoid through the subscapularis tendon is effective, regardless of the technique. When comparing the Bristow and Latarjet techniques, the recurrence of dislocations was the only outcome that could undergo a meta-analysis, and it presented a statistically significant difference in favor of the Bristow procedure. All other outcomes presented no clinically significant differences between their effect sizes. More studies presenting better methodology are still needed to achieve more robust conclusions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".