Glenoid Labral Articular Disruption Lesions in the Setting of First‐Time Anterior Shoulder Instability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes and rates of recurrent instability in patients after arthroscopic Bankart repair with and without glenolabral articular disruption (GLAD) lesions in the setting of first-time anterior instability events. METHODS: This was a retrospective comparative case series of consecutive patients with GLAD lesions in the setting of first-time anterior instability events who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair. Patients with GLAD lesions (cases) were matched at a 1:3 ratio for sex, age, body mass index, and sports participation to those without GLAD lesions (controls). Primary outcomes included postoperative range of motion (forward elevation and external rotation) and patient-reported outcomes: Subjective Shoulder Value, visual analog scale score, and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index. Rates of recurrent instability after primary arthroscopic stabilization were also collected. Statistical analysis was performed to compare outcomes between the control and GLAD groups, with significance set to P ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 56 patients undergoing arthroscopic anterior stabilization between 2012 and 2020 were included for analysis, of whom 14 had GLAD lesions whereas the remaining 42 were controls. The average follow-up time from surgery in controls was 8.2 years (range, 3.1-11.7 years), whereas the average follow-up time in patients with GLAD lesions was 7.6 years (range, 3.8-11.8 years). There were no differences in postoperative forward flexion or external rotation, Subjective Shoulder Value, visual analog scale score, or Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index. The rate of recurrent instability was found to be the same in both the control and GLAD groups (7% and 7%, respectively; P = .16). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with GLAD lesions in the setting of first-time anterior instability had comparable patient-reported outcomes, forward flexion, and external rotation postoperatively to control patients. In addition, the presence of a GLAD lesion did not influence the rate of recurrent instability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, retrospective comparative 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".