Long-term Outcomes After Open Repair of Humeral Avulsion of the Glenohumeral Ligament
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is a lack of data regarding the long-term clinical outcomes of open repair of humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligament (HAGL). Purpose: To examine the long-term patient outcomes, prevalence of related shoulder lesions, and return to sports in patients who have had open HAGL repair. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Included were 47 patients who underwent open repair of an HAGL lesion between 1995 and 2013. Clinical results were assessed using the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). Recurrence of instability, additional surgeries, confidence in the shoulder, level and type of sport before and after surgery, and return to sports were documented. Results: The mean follow-up duration was 105 months (range, 16-247 months). The mean postoperative WOSI score was 410. Postoperatively, 10 patients experienced a recurrence of instability. Subgroup analysis of patients who reported recurrence demonstrated significantly worse WOSI scores compared with patients who did not experience recurrence (730 [95% CI, 470-990] vs 320 [95% CI, 210-430], respectively; P = .007). Before surgery, 33 patients participated in competitive sports, compared with 22 patients after surgery. No postoperative neurologic or vascular complications were recorded. In 51% of patients, a labral tear was noted as a concomitant injury. Conclusion: Open repair of an HAGL lesion restored shoulder stability with good results. However, recurrence was significant (21%) with longer follow-up, and return to sports was affected. Associated lesions were prevalent.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".