Comprehensive arthroscopic management without axillary nerve release or subacromial decompression achieves satisfactory and durable results in young patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The comprehensive arthroscopic management (CAM) procedure is a useful joint-preserving option for young or active patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis (GHOA). Our objective was to evaluate the results and prognostic factors of the CAM procedure without direct axillary nerve release or subacromial decompression. METHODS: A retrospective observational study among patients with GHOA who underwent the CAM procedure was conducted. Neither axillary nerve neurolysis nor subacromial decompression was performed. Both primary and secondary GHOA were considered; the latter was defined as a history of shoulder pathology (mainly instability or proximal humerus fracture). The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scale, Simple Shoulder Test, Visual Analogue Scale, activity level, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, EuroQol 5 Dimensions 3 Levels, Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index, and active range of motion (aROM) were analysed. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients who underwent the CAM procedure met the inclusion criteria. After a mean follow-up of 42.4 ± 22.9 months, we found improvement (p < 0.001) in all postoperative values of the different scales. The procedure increased aROM overall. Patients with arthropathy due to instability showed worse results. The rate of CAM failures, defined as conversion to shoulder arthroplasty, was 12%. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the CAM procedure without direct axillary nerve neurolysis or subacromial decompression might be a valid alternative in active patients with advanced GHOA to improve shoulder function (aROM and scores), decrease pain, and delay arthroplasty. This technique showed good subjective functional scores, high patient satisfaction, and a low rate of complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".