Principles of the superior labrum and biceps complex: an expert consensus from the NEER Circle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The superior labrum and biceps complex is commonly implicated in shoulder pain and there remains discordance regarding the surgical management of superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) tears. The purpose of this study was to establish an expert consensus regarding the management of superior labrum and biceps complex pathology. METHODS: The NEER Circle is an organization of shoulder experts recognized for their service to the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) society. Consensus among 92 identified experts was sought with a series of surveys pertaining to the management of superior labrum and biceps complex (SBC) pathology. The initial survey featured questions crafted to determine the experience of the panel in treating SBC pathology. The second survey was designed to elicit opinions concerning the diagnosis and treatment of SBC pathology. The third survey aimed to establish consensus across 48 scenarios, tasking panelists with categorizing 4 surgical modalities as either preferred, acceptable, or not acceptable. The available options included débridement, SLAP repair, biceps treatment, or a combined repair and biceps treatment. In the final survey, the panelists were tasked with diagnosing SBC pathologies by assessing arthroscopic footage and evaluating treatment options within 45 scenarios. A minimum of 80% agreement was required to attain consensus, designating a treatment as either preferred or unacceptable. RESULTS: Response rates ranged from 52.2% to 58.7%. Discordance exists regarding aspects of the physical examination, patient history, imaging, nonoperative management, and the surgical approach in SBC injuries. Of the 78 clinical scenarios, 26 reached consensus agreement. Treating the biceps was the favored approach in older, more sedentary patients with evidence of biceps tendinopathy. Performing a SLAP repair was favored in scenarios depicting younger, more active patients with signs of an unstable biceps anchor or mechanical symptoms. A SLAP repair was typically contraindicated in the setting of an older patient, concomitant rotator cuff tear, and/or a prior failed SLAP repair. The management of overhead throwing athletes, particularly those that are professionals, remained controversial, although SLAP repair is generally favored in younger pitchers. CONCLUSION: The optimal management of superior labrum and biceps complex pathology requires a systematic approach based on the individual's age, occupational demands, and functional requirements. Age was the predominant factor influencing surgical decision making. SLAP repairs are generally favored in younger, active patients, whereas treating the biceps is preferred in lower-demand patients aged >30 years. Little consensus was observed regarding the management of competitive athletes.
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 | 0.101 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".