Surgical anatomy of the pectoralis major tendon insertion revisited: relationship to nearby structures and the pectoral eminence for defining the anatomic footprint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intraoperative identification of the normal pectoralis major (PM) footprint can be challenging to identify in the acute and chronic settings. The purpose of this study was to revisit the anatomic footprint of the PM tendon and to determine which nearby landmarks can be used to re-create the normal insertion site during anatomic repair or reconstruction. METHODS: Twenty-one fresh-frozen human cadaveric shoulder specimens were used to define the PM tendon width (ie, superior-to-inferior) and to determine the relationship between the superior aspect of the PM insertion and that of the latissimus dorsi (LD) and anterior deltoid (AD) tendons. An attempt was made to identify potential useful bony landmarks that can be used during anatomic repair or reconstruction of the PM tendon. RESULTS: The mean PM tendon width was 68.8 ± 4.4 mm. The superior margin of the LD insertion was 9.4 ± 5.9 mm above and the AD was 48.4 ± 7.1 mm below the superior margin of the PM tendon insertion, respectively. In 17 of 21 specimens (81%), the superior insertion of the PM tendon attached onto a bony prominence, named the pectoral eminence. CONCLUSIONS: The LD and AD tendon insertions represent reliable soft tissue landmarks for identifying the superior extent of the PM tendon along its bony footprint. The pectoral eminence can also be used as an additional reference point in the majority of cases to facilitate anatomic restoration of the pectoralis tendon during repair and reconstruction. Surgeons should be familiar with the proximity of nearby neurovascular structures when performing PM repairs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".