MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281819847 · doi:10.1016/j.asmr.2022.04.004

Consideration May Be Given to Lowering the Threshold for the Addition of Remplissage in Patients With Subcritical Glenoid Bone Loss Undergoing Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

2022· article· en· W4281819847 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeffrey L. Horinek, Mariano E. Menendez, Jonathan J. Callegari, Pablo Narbona, Alexandre Lädermann, Johannes Barth, Patrick J. Denard

Bibliographic record

VenueArthroscopy Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFederal Student AidStrykerArthrex
KeywordsMedicineBankart repairAnterior shoulderRange of motionSurgeryVisual analogue scaleDemographicsPatient satisfactionRetrospective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Treatment for patients with anterior glenohumeral instability with subcritical bone loss is evolving. The purpose of this study was to compare 2‐year outcomes of arthroscopic Bankart repair with and without Hill–Sachs remplissage in patients with <15% glenoid bone loss. Methods A multicenter retrospective study was performed on a consecutive series of patients who underwent primary isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair (IBR) or arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage (REMP) by 4 shoulder specialists between 2013 and 2019. Range of motion (ROM) and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) were collected at baseline and 2 years postoperative: Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and visual analog scale for pain. Recurrence, return to sport, satisfaction, complications, and revisions also were reviewed. Results A total of 123 patients were available, including 75 IBR and 48 REMP. Baseline demographics, activity, ROM, and PROs were similar. Mean glenoid bone loss (2.5% vs 6.1%: P < .001) was greater in REMP, although the number of on‐track lesions was similar (98.7% vs 93.8%: P = .298). WOSI scores were improved for REMP (196.5 vs 42.7: P = .004), but otherwise no difference in postoperative PROs or ROM. Differences between cohorts did not reach significance in return to sport (73% vs 83%: P = .203), recurrence (9.3% vs 2.1%: P = .148), or revisions (6.8% vs 2.1%: P = .403). For on‐track lesions there were 6 recurrences in IBR (6 of 74; 8.1%) and 1 recurrence in REMP (1 of 45; 2.2%). Conclusions Despite slightly worse pathology, patients with subcritical bone loss who undergo REMP experience similar short‐term postoperative function to isolated IBR. Recurrence, revision, and return to sport favored REMP but this study was underpowered to show statistical significance. Recurrence was common following IBR, despite subcritical glenoid bone loss and primarily on‐track lesions, suggesting that REMP can be considered in on‐track lesions. 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthroscopy Sports Medicine and RehabilitationSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207