Comparison of Modified Latarjet Procedure With Bone Graft Versus Standard Latarjet Procedure: Evaluating Outcomes and Stability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Latarjet procedure is a well-established technique for managing repeated anterior shoulder dislocation accompanied by massive glenoid bone loss. Aim of this article was to assess outcomes among modified Latarjet procedure using allograft from Iliac bone and a standard Latarjet procedure using the coracoid process. METHODS: Six patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability and significant glenoid bone loss were retrospectively analyzed. Three patients underwent the modified Latarjet procedure with iliac crest bone graft (Group A), and three underwent the standard Latarjet procedure (Group B). Outcomes were assessed at the 12-month follow-up, including shoulder stability, functional scores (Constant, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, and the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI)), range of motion, complications, and return to sports. RESULTS: Both groups showed improvements in stability and functional scores, with no recurrent instability reported. Group A demonstrated slightly higher functional scores and range of motion. One patient in Group A experienced donor site pain, while one patient in Group B showed significant graft resorption. Graft union was achieved in all patients. Two-thirds of patients in each group returned to their pre-injury level of sports participation. CONCLUSION: Both techniques provided good clinical outcomes for anterior shoulder instability with glenoid bone loss. The modified Latarjet with iliac crest graft may offer slight advantages in functional outcomes and graft preservation but is associated with potential donor site morbidity. Larger, prospective studies are needed to definitively compare these techniques.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".