Outcomes of Open Bankart Repair Plus Inferior Capsular Shift Compared with Latarjet Procedure in Contact Athletes with Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Open Bankart repair plus inferior capsular shift (OBICS) and Latarjet procedure (LA) are considered appropriate treatment alternatives for high-performance athletes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the functional outcomes and recurrence rate of each surgery. Our hypothesis: there were no differences between the two treatments. Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted with n=90 contact athletes divided into two groups of 45 patients. One group was treated with OBICS, and the other one with LA. The mean follow-up period was 25 (24-32) months for the OBICS group and 26 (24-31) months for the LA group. Primary functional outcomes of each group were assessed at baseline, six months, one year, and two years after surgery. The functional outcomes were also compared between the groups. The evaluation tools used were the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability score (WOSI) and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scale (ASES). In addition, recurrent instability and range of motion (ROM) were also evaluated. Results: ). Moreover, there were no significant differences between preoperative and postoperative ROM in each group or in terms of external rotation (ER) and ER in 90º abduction between the groups. Conclusion: No differences were found between OBICS and LA surgery. Both procedures can be indicated according to the surgeon's preference to reduce recurrence rates in contact athletes with recurrent anterior shoulder 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".