Primary Arthroscopic Stabilization for a First-Time Anterior Dislocation of the Shoulder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term efficacy of arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR). METHODS: Eighty-eight patients with an age of ≤35 years who had sustained a primary anterior glenohumeral dislocation were enrolled in a single-center, double-blinded clinical trial. Subjects were randomized to receive either an arthroscopic washout (AWO) or ABR. Participants were reassessed after a minimum of 10 years postoperatively. Data regarding recurrent instability, revision surgery, satisfaction, and function (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand [DASH] and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index [WOSI]) scores were collected. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients (74%; 32 in the AWO group and 33 in the ABR group) were included and had an average follow-up of 14.2 years (range,12 to 16 years). The rate of recurrent dislocation was significantly higher in the AWO group than the ABR group (47% and 12%, respectively; p = 0.002). Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted for event-free survival using recurrent instability and/or revision surgery as clinical end points. This analysis demonstrated a sustained significant difference between the groups at 10 years after surgery (58% for the AWO group versus 79% for the ABR group; log-rank test [Mantel-Cox]; p = 0.018). Long-term WOSI scores were significantly better in the ABR group. The presence of recurrent instability was associated with significantly poorer WOSI and DASH scores. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates a long-term benefit in overall shoulder stability and functional outcome in high-risk patients who have undergone ABR for first-time anterior dislocation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".