Poster 158: Remplissage Reduces Recurrent Instability in High-Risk Patients with “On-Track” Hill-Sachs Lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The objective of this study was to compare recurrent instability rates and patient reported outcomes (PROs) between patients with “on-track” Hill-Sachs lesions who underwent ALR alone versus patients who had received ALR with remplissage (ALR+R). Our hypothesis was that performing a remplissage in addition to ALR would decrease the recurrence rate, especially among high-risk subjects such as contact athletes. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients age 12-40 years old with “on-track” shoulders who underwent ALR+R between Jan 2014 and Dec 2019 at a single institution, with minimum 2-year follow-up. Exclusion criteria included: prior ipsilateral shoulder surgery, >20% glenoid bone loss (GBL), concomitant rotator cuff repair, and connective-tissue disorder. We then identified a cohort of patients meeting the same inclusion and exclusion criteria who had undergone ALR alone. Patient age, gender, follow-up time, first-time dislocation vs. multiple dislocations, and contact sport participation were recorded. GBL, Hills-Sachs Interval (HSI), glenoid track (GT), and DTD were measured from pre-operative MRIs. The patients were then contacted to determine if they had had recurrent instability and/or revision surgery. We also obtained current Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) scores. Subgroup analysis was performed on “high-risk” patients (DTD <10mm and contact sport participation) from each cohort. Results: The ALR+R cohort had 17 subjects and the ALR cohort had 51 subjects. There were no differences in demographic variables or GBL between cohorts (P>0.05). The ALR+R subjects had larger HSI (14.7mm ± 2.4 vs 5.7mm ± 5.0; P<0.001) and smaller DTD (8.2mm ± 3.2 vs 16.2mm ± 5.7; P<0.001). There were no difference in WOSI (304.2 ± 213 vs 302.4mm ± 344.2; P=0.98) or SANE (84.3 ± 16.6 vs 87.3 ± 8.9; P=0.94) scores between groups. Only 1 (5.9%) subject in the ALR+R cohort had a recurrent subluxation, and there were no dislocations or revision surgeries. The ALR cohort had 7 (13.7%) recurrent dislocations, 3 (5.8%) recurrent subluxations, and 6 (11.8%) revision surgeries. Multivariate analysis indicated that smaller DTD (OR 0.71; 95% CI (0.56 – 0.87); P=0.001) and contact sport participation (OR 8.67; 95% CI (1.19 – 63.35); P=0.033) were associated with increased risk of recurrent instability. After adjusting for contact sport participation and DTD value, the ALR+R cohort had a 98.8% lower risk of recurrent instability compared to the ALR cohort (OR 0.012; 95% CI (0.0001 – 0.22); P=0.003). Among “high risk” subjects, there was only 1 (11.1%) instability event in the ALR+R group and 4 (80%) in the ALR alone group (P=0.023) Conclusions: DTD calculations can be used as an independent predictor of recurrent shoulder dislocation following ALR for treatment of anterior shoulder instability. For patients with “on- track” shoulder lesions, but small DTD measurements (“near-track” lesions), remplissage is protective against recurrent instability events and need for revision surgery. This may be especially true for “high- risk” patients, such as those who participate in contact sports.
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) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".