Long Term Outcomes of Anterior Shoulder Instability in Throwers and Overhead Athletes at a Mean Follow-up of 15 years (240)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: There is a paucity of literature regarding outcomes of anterior shoulder instability (ASI) in throwers and overhead athletes (OHA). The purpose of this study was to report the pathology, treatment strategies, and outcomes of ASI in throwers and overhead athletes utilizing an established US geographic population-based cohort. Methods: An established geographic database of more than 500,000 patients was used to identify athletes <40 years of age with ASI between 1994 and 2016. Medical records were reviewed to obtain demographics, type of sport, surgical details, and clinical outcomes. Patients were contacted after final clinical follow-up for patient reported outcomes (PRO). The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability (WOSI) score, return to sport at previous level of performance (RPP), rate of return to play (RTP) and time to RTP were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed comparing throwers to non-throwers and OHA to non-overhead athletes (NOHA). Results: The study population consisted of 171 patients, 114 NOHA and 57 OHA. Of the OHA, 40 were throwers. The mean follow-up was 14.7 ± 5.6 years for PRO’s and 11.7 ± 7.3 years for last clinical evaluation. No difference in overall instability events was seen in either group. Throwers were more likely to present with subluxations while non-throwers were more likely to present with frank dislocations. NOHA and non-throwers were more likely than OHA and throwers to have a history of trauma related to ASI, respectively ( P = <.001, P = .002). Throwers were more likely to undergo an open surgical procedure (45%) than non-throwers (15%) ( P = .038). The rate of recurrent instability between groups was similar. Throwers returned to sport at a lower rate than non-throwers, however this did not reach significance (64% vs 83%, P = .100). Throwers and OHA reported similar WOSI scores, RPP and time to RTP grouped by surgical or conservative management compared to non-throwers and NOHA, respectively. Conclusions: In a US cohort of patients, throwers and OHA had a similar number of instability events compared to non-throwers and NOHA, respectively. Non-throwers and NOHA were more likely to present with frank dislocation which is supported by the significantly higher rates of trauma in both groups. Notably, the WOSI score, RPP, rate of RTP and time to RTP showed no difference between throwers and OHA when compared to their non-throwing and NOHA counterparts.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".