Remplissage Yields Similar 2‐Year Outcomes, Fewer Complications, and Low Recurrence Compared to Latarjet Across a Wide Range of Preoperative Glenoid Bone Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare functional outcome, return to sport, satisfaction, postoperative recurrence, and complications in patients undergoing primary arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage (ABR) to primary Latarjet. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study was performed on patients undergoing primary ABR or open Latarjet between 2013 and 2019 who had a minimum 2-year follow-up. Baseline and two-year range of motion (ROM), patient-reported outcomes (PROs: Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index [WOSI], Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation [SANE], and visual analog scale [VAS] for pain) recurrence, return to sport, satisfaction, and complications were reviewed. RESULTS: This study included 258 patients, including 70 ABRs and 188 Latarjet procedures. Baseline demographics, ROM, and PROs were similar. Mean preop glenoid bone loss (GBL) (12.3% ± 10.9% vs 7.6% ± 9%; P < .001) and off-track lesions (23% vs 13%; P = .046) were higher in the ABR group, while preoperative GBL range was similar (0-42% vs 0-47%). Changes in the VAS (1.9 vs 0.9; P = .019) and WOSI (1096 vs 805; P < .001) were improved in ABR. The percentage of patients who achieved a minimal clinically important difference was improved in WOSI for ABR and PASS for ABR in SANE, VAS, and WOSI scores. The ABR cohort reported worse changes in external rotation (ER) (-4° vs +19°; P < .001). Return to sport among overhead and contact athletes favored ABR (91.5% vs 72.7%; P = .007). Satisfaction and recurrent dislocation were similar. Surgical complications were observed in 0% of ABR cases, compared to 5.9% in the Latarjet group. CONCLUSION: Primary ABR resulted in 2-year functional outcomes that were as good or superior to primary Latarjet, with higher return to sport for overhead and contact activities, fewer complications, and comparably low recurrence rates, even despite greater bipolar bone loss in the ABR cohort. However, this comes at the expense of decreased external rotation, which may be considered in individual patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective comparative study.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".