Factors affecting a patient’s experience following the open Latarjet procedure to treat recurrent anterior shoulder instability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The open Latarjet procedure is a widely used treatment for recurrent anterior instability of the shoulder. Although satisfactory outcomes are reported, factors which influence a patient's experience are poorly quantified. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a range of demographic factors and measures of the severity of instability on patient-reported outcome measures in patients who underwent an open Latarjet procedure at a minimum follow-up of two years. A total of 350 patients with anterior instability of the shoulder who underwent an open Latarjet procedure between 2005 and 2018 were reviewed prospectively, with the collection of demographic and psychosocial data, preoperative CT, and complications during follow-up of two years. The primary outcome measure was the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), assessed preoperatively, at two years postoperatively, and at mid-term follow-up at a mean of 50.6 months (SD 24.8) postoperatively. The secondary outcome measure was the abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) score. The influence of the demographic details of the patients, measurements of the severity of instability, and the complications of surgery were assessed in a multivariate analysis. The mean age of the patients was 25.5 years (22 to 32) and 27 (7.7%) were female. The median time to surgery after injury was 19 months (interquartile range (IQR) 13 to 39). Seven patients developed clinically significant complications requiring further intervention within two years of surgery. The median percentage WOSI deficiency was 8.0% (IQR 4 to 20) and median QuickDASH was 3.0 (IQR 0 to 9) at mid-term assessment. A minority of patients reported a poorer experience, and 22 (6.3%) had a > 50% deficiency in WOSI score. Multivariate analysis revealed that consumption of ≥ 20 units of alcohol/week, a pre-existing affective disorder or epilepsy, medicolegal litigation, increasing time to surgery, and residing in a more socioeconomically deprived area were independently predictive of a poorer WOSI score. Although most patients treated by an open Latarjet procedure have excellent outcomes at mid-term follow-up, a minority have poorer outcomes, which are mainly predictable from pre-existing demographic factors, rather than measures of the severity of 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".