Mid-term to long-term results of open posterior bone block grafting in recurrent posterior shoulder instability: a clinical and CT-based analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is little consensus on the best treatment after failed conservative management of recurrent posterior shoulder instability. The purpose of this study was to analyze our clinical and radiological mid-term to long-term results of an open, posterior bone block procedure for the treatment of recurrent posterior shoulder instability. Methods: From 1999 to 2015, 14 patients were included in the study and available for clinical and radiographic follow-up (FU). FU included a standardized physical examination, assessment of the Constant-Murley-Score, subjective shoulder value, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index. Conventional radiographs and a computed tomography (CT)-scan were performed preoperatively and at latest FU. Glenohumeral arthropathy was classified as per Samilson and Prieto. The CT scans were used to evaluate the structure of the graft (resorption, union), graft positioning, glenoid version, centering of the humeral head, and glenoid erosion and morphology. Results: = .005). Degenerative changes increased by at least one grade in 67% of the patients. Mean preoperative glenoid retroversion (CT) was 7.5° ± 6°. The position of the graft was optimal in 86% (n = 12). In 62% of the cases, a major resorption of the graft (Zhu grade II) was observed. Conclusion: The rate of tested recurrent instability at last FU was as high as 31% (n = 4, atraumatic [n = 3] vs. traumatic [n = 1]) after a median FU of 9 years. Given the moderate improvement of clinical outcome scores, shoulder stability and the increase of degenerative joint changes by at least one grade (Samilson/Prieto) in 67% of patients, a posterior bone block procedure is not a uniformly satisfying treatment option for recurrent posterior shoulder subluxation, especially in cases of atraumatic posterior instability.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".