MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387996526 · doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2023.10.021

Suture Button Fixation in Latarjet Has Similar Load to Failure and Clinical Outcomes but Lower Bone Resorption Compared With Screw Fixation: A Systematic Review

2023· review· en· W4387996526 on OpenAlexaff
Nayeem Z. Hali, Muaaz Tahir, Robert W. Jordan, Hubert Laprus, Jarret M. Woodmass, Peter D’Alessandro, Shahbaz S. Malik

Bibliographic record

VenueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsPan Am Clinic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFixation (population genetics)Fibrous jointMedicineSurgeryLatarjet procedureOrthodonticsCoracoid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.012
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related SurgerySame topicOrthopedic Surgery and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207