Glenohumeral Arthropathy After Arthroscopic Surgery for Shoulder Instability: Outcomes at 16-Year Follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Glenohumeral arthropathy after surgery for traumatic shoulder instability is a condition whose etiology and long-term course are still unknown. Purpose: To evaluate the risk factors for the onset of arthropathy and to assess the relationship between the degree of arthropathy and final outcomes. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: We included patients who underwent surgery for a shoulder instability at a single institution between 2000 and 2004. The following variables were studied for relationship with functional outcomes: sex, age, body mass index, smoking at the time of surgery, number of episodes of shoulder dislocation, and time from first dislocation to surgery. The number of anchors used and their position were also evaluated. Functional outcomes were assessed using the Constant-Murley, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, and Rowe scores, and results were compared with the onset of arthropathy according to Buscayret classification. Spearman and Pearson correlations were performed for the association between glenohumeral arthritis (Buscayret grade) and the study variables, the Mann-Whitney U test and Student t test were used to compare outcome scores with the study variables, and the Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare Buscayret grade and outcome scores. Results: A total of 26 shoulders in 25 patients were analyzed, finding a high rate (54%) of arthropathy at a minimum follow-up of 16 years. Patients with Buscayret grade 4 had the worst functional results ( P = .007). However, 80% of patients with Buscayret grade ≤3 had excellent Constant-Murley scores. A significant relationship was found between degree of arthropathy and patients who were smokers before surgery ( P < .01). No relationship was found between the onset of arthropathy and the other variables analyzed. Conclusion: Postinstability glenohumeral arthropathy was not correlated with functional outcomes except in those patients with advanced arthroplasty (Buscayret grade 4). A direct relationship was found between smoking before surgery and the onset of glenohumeral arthropathy.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".