MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400051223 · doi:10.61919/jhrr.v4i2.923

Comparison Of Functional Outcomes of Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Vs Open Bristow-Latarjet Procedure for Shoulder Joint Instability

2024· article· en· W4400051223 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Waqas Azam, Shuja Uddin, Mudassar Saddique, Hafiz Muhammad Shiraz, Abdul Waqas, Syed Zain Abbas, Mian Muhammad Haneef

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health and Rehabilitation Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBankart repairLatarjet procedureShoulder jointMedicineSurgeryJoint (building)Anterior shoulderEngineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Anterior shoulder instability predominantly affects collegiate athletes, with a notable incidence of 0.12 per 1000 athletic exposures. Acute dislocations pose an orthopedic emergency requiring immediate repositioning to prevent complications such as brachial plexus or artery compression, avascular necrosis of the humeral head, and chronic disability. Conservative therapy often precedes surgical intervention due to concerns over recovery time, discomfort, decreased range of motion, and high recurrence rates. Objective: This study aims to compare the efficacy of Arthroscopic Bankart Repair and open Bristow-Latarjet Procedure in terms of pain reduction, return to normal activities, and improvement in Western Ontario Shoulder Instability (WOSI) score among patients with anterior shoulder joint instability. Methods: A 12-month comparative study was conducted at Lahore General Hospital from April 2022 to April 2023, following ethical review board approval. Thirty-two patients aged 18–32, with severe unidirectional dislocation, consented and participated. They were divided into two groups: Group A underwent Arthroscopic Bankart Repair, and Group B underwent the open Bristow-Latarjet Procedure. Results: The average age was 23 in Group B and 25 in Group A. Males comprised 80% of Group A and 68% of Group B. WOSI scores averaged 72 for Bankart and 76 for Latarjet. Rowe scores were 75 (Bankart) and 69 (Latarjet), with Quick DASH scores of 11 (Bankart) and 15 (Latarjet). External rotation was 77 degrees in Bankart and 73 degrees in Latarjet. Functional satisfaction was reported by 84.0% of Bankart and 11.7% of Latarjet patients. The cost of Latarjet was significantly lower than that of Bankart. Conclusion: The open Latarjet procedure demonstrated higher functional satisfaction and lower operational costs compared to Arthroscopic Bankart Repair, which exhibited a higher recurrence rate. Given the economic constraints in a developing country like Pakistan, Latarjet may be a more viable option despite the non-invasive appeal of Bankart Repair.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.222
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health and Rehabilitation ResearchSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207