Double-screw and quadruple-button fixation for the glenoid: Latarjet versus bone block applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The Latarjet and bone block procedures can be secured with screws or cortical buttons. The purpose of this biomechanical study was to compare quadruple buttons vs. double screws for fixation of anterior glenoid bone grafts. Methods Twelve cadaveric scapulae (6 pairs) were denuded, resected, and potted. Pairs were randomized to quadruple-button or double-screw fixation after creation of a 15% anterior glenoid defect. The specimens underwent cyclic uniaxial compressive glenoid loading between 50 and 200 N for 1000 cycles at 1 Hz. Testing was repeated for conjoint tendon loads of 0 N (simulating a bone block procedure), 10 N, and 20 N (simulating a Latarjet procedure). Peak resultant relative coracoid graft displacement was optically tracked at 3 points (superior, central, and inferior) on the edge of the coracoid. Results No significant differences were found between buttons and screws for bone block applications or with 10 N of conjoint tendon loading ( P ≥ .095). At 20 N of conjoint tendon loading, however, the screws were significantly more stable than the buttons ( P ≤ .023). During the initial 20-N conjoint load application, all 3 points displaced significantly more with the button reconstruction than with the screws ( P ≤ .01). Overall, mean displacements did not exceed 1 mm at any position on the coracoid, regardless of testing condition. Conclusions The quadruple-button technique is comparable to screws when the coracoid is used as a bone block or when conjoint tendon loading is minimized. However, at higher conjoint tendon loads, the screws produced a more stable coracoid graft than the buttons.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".