MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323654882 · doi:10.1016/j.jseint.2023.02.006

Does preoperative glenoid bony defect determine final coracoid graft positioning in arthroscopic Latarjet?

2023· article· en· W4323654882 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ulrike Novo Rivas, Claudio Calvo, Natalia Martínez‐Catalán, Gonzalo Luengo‐Alonso, Diana Morcillo Barrenechea, Antonio M. Foruria, Emílio Calvo

Bibliographic record

VenueJSES International · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoracoidMedicineLatarjet procedureSagittal planeScapulaGlenoid cavitySurgeryNuclear medicineOrthodonticsRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background It has been demonstrated that the accurate positioning of the graft is key to restoring shoulder stability and preventing future arthrosis development. Preoperative anteroinferior glenoid bone loss is frequently encountered when performing a Latarjet, and it has not been determined yet if the amount of bony defect can influence graft positioning. The aim of the study was to determine if a preoperative glenoid bony defect has an influence on the final coracoid graft position in the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure. Methods Fifty-five patients who underwent the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure were included, with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. There were 51 men (92.7%). Mean age was 29.1 (SD 7.63). Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, Rowe, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation scores were fulfilled. All measurements were performed by a musculoskeletal radiologist based on a multiplanar bidimensional CT scan. Dimensions of the glenoid, glenoid defect, and glenoid track were calculated. Position of the graft was evaluated in the axial (distance to glenoid surface, angulation of the graft and screws) and sagittal planes (percentage of the coracoid graft below the equator) as described by Kany et al and Barth et al respectively. Results There was a glenoid defect in 41 patients (74.5 %). Mean width of the defect was 4.32 mm (SD 3.08) which represented 15.3% of the native glenoid surface (SD 10.8). 78.2% of the patients were offtrack preoperatively, and 11.9% remained offtrack postoperatively. The final glenoid diameter with the graft was 32.1 mm (SD 4.34). Mean distance from the graft to the glenoid at 50% height was 1.1 mm (SD 2.19 mm) and at 25% height was 1.31 mm (SD 2.05). Mean angulation of the superior and inferior screws were 26.9° (SD 8.2°) and 27.1° (SD 7.35°), respectively. In 81.8% of the cases, the graft was deemed to be flush with the glenoid. The percentage of the coracoid graft under the equator of the glenoid was 71.2 % (SD 21.8). There was not a statistically significant difference in screw angulation or graft positioning in the axial plane when comparing patients who had a glenoid defect with those who did not, or depending on the size ( P > .05). Percentage of graft below the equator was, however, lower in patients without bony defect ( P = .04). Conclusion This study showed that accurate position of the coracoid graft is achieved in the presence of a glenoid bony defect. In the cases of intact glenoid, the height of the graft should be carefully evaluated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJSES InternationalSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207