Suture Button Fixation in Latarjet Has Similar Load to Failure and Clinical Outcomes but Lower Bone Resorption Compared With Screw Fixation: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To compare the 2 Latarjet fixation techniques—screw fixation (SF) versus suture button (SB) —for clinical, biomechanical, and radiologic outcomes. Methods A systematic review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic and Meta‐Analyses guidelines using MEDLINE and Embase databases and was prospectively registered on PROSPERO. Only comparative clinical and biomechanical studies of Latarjet with SF and SB were included. Studies were appraised using the Methodical Index for Non‐Randomised Studies (MINORS) tool. Results Eleven studies met eligible criteria: 7 clinical studies (SB, n = 279; SF, n = 845) and 4 biomechanical. In total, 80.9% (SB) and 84.2% (SF) of patients were male. Follow‐up ranged from 6 to 63.6 months. The overall recurrent instability rate for SB ranged from 0 to 8.3% and for SF ranged from 0 to 2.75%. Only one study demonstrated a greater recurrent instability rate with SB ( P = .02). Overall SB complication rates ranged from 0 to 12.5% and SF ranged from 0 to 27%. Two studies reported greater complications and reoperations with SF related to hardware. Summary forest plots from 4 studies showed no significant difference in Walch Duplay score (mean difference, range –5.00 to 1.20 [95% confidence interval {CI} –12.13 to 8.56], I 2 inconsistency = 0%), Rowe score (mean difference, range –2.00 to 4.00 [95% CI –7.37 to 7.66], I 2 inconsistency = 45%), and VAS for pain (mean difference, range –0.10 to 0.60 [95% CI –0.72 to 1.33], I 2 inconsistency = 0%). There was no statistically significant difference between SB and SF in the postoperative range of motion. Radiologically, there was no significant difference in graft positioning and union at final follow‐up, but graft resorption was greater in SF (range 25.2%‐47.6%) compared with SB (range 10.1%‐18.5%). Biomechanical studies showed no significant difference in maximum load to failure (SB, range 184‐266 N vs SF, range 148‐288 N). Conclusions Clinically, SB fixation demonstrated similar functional outcome and range of motion when compared with SF, with the potential benefit of lower rates of graft resorption and hardware‐related complications. Biomechanically there was no difference in maximum load to failure. Level of Evidence Level III, systematic review of Level III and biomechanical studies.
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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".