Division 1 Collegiate American Football Players Experience a Low Revision Rate After Undergoing Arthroscopic Shoulder Labral Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To describe rates of revision surgery and recurrence events, as well as to evaluate functional outcomes and return to play (RTP) of a cohort of Division 1 (D1) collegiate American football players who underwent arthroscopic labral repair for shoulder instability. Methods: D1 collegiate American football players undergoing arthroscopic surgical management of shoulder instability between 2017 and 2021 at a single institution were included. Demographics, imaging, surgical details, and postoperative outcomes, including revision surgery and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), were collected. Hill-Sachs lesions and glenoid bone loss were evaluated on magnetic resonance imaging. Results: Fifteen shoulders of 15 consecutive male athletes were included, with mean age of 19.7 ± 1.0 years and mean follow-up of 2.1 ± 1.0 years. Twelve injuries were shoulder subluxations and 3 were dislocations. Seven cases were posterior injuries, 4 were anterior, and 4 included both anterior and posterior injuries. All patients underwent arthroscopic labrum repair alone, without remplissage or any additional open procedures. A mean of 6 anchors were used in each shoulder, with anchors being placed in at least 2 quadrants. Hill-Sachs lesions were observed in 6 shoulders (40%). Thirteen shoulders had no glenoid bone loss, and 2 had >15% glenoid bone loss. Two shoulders required revision surgery. Significant differences were found in postoperative WOSI scores between patients with and without recurrent instability (66.9 ± 11.5% vs 94.6 ± 5.0%), and between patients with and without Hill-Sachs lesions (84.6 ± 14.7% vs 95.0 ± 5.9%). Fourteen patients (93%) RTP at the same level. Conclusions: Arthroscopic labral repairs as a treatment for shoulder instability in D1 American football players, without remplissage/bone block procedures, yielded low recurrence and revision rates, and a high RTP rate. Additionally, Hill-Sachs lesions and recurrent shoulder instability were associated with inferior postoperative subjective outcomes (WOSI score). Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic case series.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".