Decreased Glenoid Retroversion Is a Risk Factor for Failure of Primary Arthroscopic Bankart Repair in Individuals With Subcritical Bone Loss Versus No Bone Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether glenoid retroversion is an independent risk factor for failure after arthroscopic Bankart repair. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up. In part 1 of the study, individuals with no glenoid bone loss on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and who failed arthroscopic Bankart repair (cases) were compared with individuals who did not fail Bankart repair (controls). In part 2 of the study, cases with subcritical (<20%) glenoid bone loss as measured on sagittal T1 MRI sequences who failed arthroscopic Bankart repair were compared with controls who did not. For each part of the study, glenoid version was measured using axial T2 MRI sequences. Positive angular measurements were designated to represent glenoid anteversion, whereas negative measurements were designated to represent glenoid retroversion. Independent t tests were conducted to determine the association between glenoid version and failure after arthroscopic Bankart repair. RESULTS: There were 20 cases and 40 controls in part 1 of the study. In part 2, there were 19 cases and 21 controls. There was no difference in baseline characteristics between cases and controls. Among individuals with no glenoid bone loss, there was no difference in glenoid version between cases and controls (cases: 6.0° ± 8.1° vs controls: 5.1° ± 7.8°, P = .22). Among individuals with subcritical bone loss, cases (3.8° ± 4.4°) were associated with significantly less mean retroversion compared with controls (7.1° ± 2.8°, P = .0085). Decreased retroversion (odds ratio 1.34; 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.72, P = 20) was a significant independent predictor of failure using univariable logistic regression. CONCLUSIONS: While glenoid retroversion is not associated with failure after arthroscopic Bankart repair in individuals with no glenoid bone loss, decreased retroversion is associated with failure in individuals with subcritical bone loss. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3: Retrospective review.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".