RESULT OF BONE BLOCKING SURGERY IN COMBAT ATHLETES WITH ANTERIOR SHOULDER INSTABILITY: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to understand the way fighting athletes respond to bone block surgery in the treatment for shoulder instability. Methods: Prospective clinical study with competitive fighters with shoulder instability who underwent bone block surgery from 2013 to 2016, followed by a postoperative rehabilitation protocol. For the evaluation, eight combat athletes with anterior shoulder instability were treated, with a total of nine shoulders, since one athlete underwent bilateral surgery. All patients signed the Free and Informed Consent Form. The evaluation protocol included medical consultation, radiography of the operated shoulder, degree of active and passive lateral rotation; degree of active and passive elevation; visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain; Athletic Shoulder Outcome Rating Scale (EROE; acronym in Portuguese) scores; Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES). Results: We observed a decrease in the range of passive and active movement in the recent postoperative period. In later postoperative, values were close to those in the preoperative period at the end of the follow-up. There was improvement in pain, and in all ASES, WOSI and EROE scores no complications were documented. As for returning to sport, two athletes did not return, one of them due to shoulder pain and the other due to retirement. Conclusion: Bone block surgery has shown good functional results in uncomplicated combat athletes.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".