Association Between Preoperative Glenoid Bone Loss and Postoperative Outcomes After Coracoid Transfer Combined With Open Bankart Repair: Comparison of the Bristow and Latarjet Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Whether the extent of glenoid bone loss (GBL) affects clinical outcome after coracoid process transfer (CPT) is still unclear. Purpose: To evaluate postoperative outcomes after CPT combined with open Bankart repair in young rugby players in terms of the extent of GBL and between the Bristow and Latarjet techniques. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The authors investigated 101 shoulders in 91 competitive rugby players who underwent CPT combined with open Bankart repair by the Bristow (group B; 66 shoulders) or Latarjet (group L; 35 shoulders) procedure between 2007 and 2017. The extent of GBL was calculated from the en face view of the glenoid on preoperative 3-dimensional computed tomography scans and was used to categorize shoulders into 4 grades (grade 0, 0%; grade 1, >0% and ≤10%; grade 2, >10% and ≤20%; grade 3, >20%). At the minimum 2-year follow-up, the authors analyzed the relationship between GBL or GBL grade and postoperative outcome scores (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Rowe score, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, and patient satisfaction), return-to-play (RTP) times, graft failure (insufficient union or translocation), and recurrence. Results: The mean GBL in all shoulders was 10.9% ± 9.2% and was not significantly different between the 2 groups. There were no significant correlations between GBL and any outcome measure in either group. The mean RTP time was significantly shorter in group L versus group B (4.8 ± 1.1 vs 5.8 ± 1.8 months, respectively; P = .002), but it was not associated with GBL. In group B, the rate of graft failure was not significantly higher in shoulders with grade 0 or 1 GBL versus grade 2 or 3 GBL (8 [25.0%] vs 4 [11.8%], respectively; P = .21). In group B, graft failure was confirmed in 12 shoulders (18.2%), compared with 1 shoulder (2.9%) in group L. Postoperative recurrence occurred in significantly fewer shoulders in group B than in group L (2 [3.0%] vs 5 [14.3%], respectively; P = .047). Conclusion: The extent of GBL did not affect outcome scores after CPT, regardless of operative procedure.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".