MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402030457 · doi:10.1177/03635465241271518

Isokinetic Strength and Balance Analyses for Predicting Return to Sports After the Latarjet Procedure: A Prospective Cross-sectional Study

2024· article· en· W4402030457 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohamad Moussa, B. El Hariri, Nicolas Lefèvre, Olivier Grimaud, P. Bouché, Yoann Bohu, Zeinab Khalaf, Jean‐David Werthel, Antoine Gérometta, Alexandre Hardy

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Sports Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBalance (ability)Latarjet procedurePhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineSurgeryCoracoid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Isokinetic torque in shoulder internal rotation (IR) and external rotation (ER) can be considered as potential indicators for dynamic stability of the glenohumeral joint. Purpose: To assess the efficacy of 4-month isokinetic testing in predicting the 6-month return-to-sports (RTS) status after Latarjet surgery, explore its correlations with testing parameters, and identify optimal thresholds to ensure a safe RTS. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: The study assessed athletes who underwent the Latarjet stabilization procedure between January 2022 and June 2023. The primary outcome was RTS at 6 months after surgery. The primary examined predictors were isokinetic testing metrics at 4 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes comprised the modified Closed Kinetic Chain Upper Extremity Stability Test (mCKCUEST) and several patient-reported outcome measures, including the Walch-Duplay score, the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), and the Shoulder Instability–Return to Sports after Injury scale. To assess the predictors, patients were divided into those who returned to any level of sports compared with those who did not return to sports. The correlation between isokinetic testing results and other outcome scores was also analyzed. Results: A total of 71 patients (mean age, 27.43 ± 9.09 years) were included in the study. Of these, 23.61% did not return to sports, 38.89% returned at a lower level, and 37.50% returned to the same level. Significant rotational strength disparities were noted. Patients who did not return to sports at 6 months demonstrated inferior strength in concentric ER at 60 deg/s, concentric ER at 240 deg/s, concentric IR at 240 deg/s, and eccentric IR at 30 deg/s ( P < .05). Similar trends appeared for all studied patient-reported outcome measures and the mCKCUEST ( P < .05). Receiver operating characteristic analysis emphasized the significance of isokinetic testing in concentric ER at 240 deg/s (area under the curve = 0.759; P = .001; cutoff = 0.32 N·m/kg; sensitivity = 100.0%; specificity = 49.1%) and eccentric ER at 30 deg/s (area under the curve = 0.760; P = .001; cutoff = 0.51 N·m/kg; sensitivity = 94.1%; specificity = 49.1%) for RTS prediction. Additionally, ER strength moderately correlated with the Walch-Duplay score across all examined velocities ( r = 0.26-0.34; P < .05). The modified WOSI score was weakly linked to ER strength at 240 deg/s and 30 deg/s ( r = 0.24-0.25; P < .05) as well as moderately linked to the limb symmetry index in ER at 60 deg/s and 30 deg/s ( r = 0.30-0.38; P < .05). Conclusion: Isokinetic testing can act as an independent predictor of successful RTS after Latarjet surgery, with concentric ER at 240 deg/s, concentric IR at 240 deg/s, eccentric ER at 30 deg/s, and eccentric IR at 30 deg/s showing the most accuracy. Strength recovery in ER was associated with better Walch-Duplay and modified WOSI scores.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 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 venueThe American Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207