Anterior Shoulder Instability Part II—Latarjet, Remplissage, and Glenoid Bone‐Grafting—An International Consensus Statement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to establish consensus statements via a modified Delphi process on the Latarjet procedure, remplissage, and glenoid-bone grafting for anterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A consensus process on the treatment utilizing a modified Delphi technique was conducted, with 65 shoulder surgeons from 14 countries across 5 continents participating. Experts were assigned to one of 9 working groups defined by specific subtopics of interest within anterior shoulder instability. RESULTS: The technical approaches identified in the statements on the Latarjet procedure and glenoid bone-graft were that a subscapularis split approach should be utilized, and that it is unclear whether a capsular repair is routinely required. Furthermore, despite similar indications, glenoid bone-grafting may be preferred over the Latarjet in patients with bone-loss greater than can be treated with a coracoid graft, and in cases of surgeon preference, failed prior Latarjet or glenoid bone-grafting procedure, and epilepsy. In contrast, the primary indications for a remplissage procedure was either an off-track or engaging Hill-Sachs lesion without severe glenoid bone loss. Additionally, in contrast to the bone-block procedure, complications following remplissage are rare, and loss of shoulder external rotation can be minimized by performing the tenodesis via the safe-zone and not over medializing the fixation. CONCLUSION: Overall, 89% of statements reached unanimous or strong consensus. The statements that reached unanimous consensus were the prognostic factors that are important to consider in those undergoing a glenoid bone-grafting procedure including age, activity level, Hill-Sachs Lesion, extent of glenoid bone-loss, hyperlaxity, prior surgeries, and arthritic changes. Furthermore, there was unanimous agreement that it is unclear whether a capsular repair is routinely required with a glenoid bone graft, but it may be beneficial in some cases. There was no unanimous agreement on any aspect related to the Latarjet procedure or Remplissage. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, expert opinion.
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 | 0.087 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".