Allograft Resorption Following Arthroscopic Anatomic Glenoid Reconstruction Is Part of Remodeling to Restore the Native Glenoid Size and Shape 6.9 Months Postoperatively
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To determine if the distal tibia allograft (DTA) remodels after arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction (AAGR) to restore the native glenoid size and shape postoperatively. Methods This is a retrospective study on patients who underwent AAGR with DTA between 2013 and 2022 using screw fixation who have completed postoperative clinical follow‐up for a minimum of 2 years and have an available postoperative computed tomography (CT) scan. Glenoid width (anterior‐posterior) and height (superior‐inferior) were measured using Horos and Meshmixer on an en face view. The measured glenoid width was compared to the predicted glenoid width based on height using the following equation: Width (mm) = 2.53 mm + 0.71 ∗ Height (mm) , and the difference between the 2 variables was calculated. Data analysis used a paired t test, Pearson correlation, and receiver operating characteristic curve at a .05 significance level. Results In 109 patients included in this study, the mean ± SD age at surgery was 28.2 ± 9.6 years, mean ± SD body mass index was 26.1 ± 5.0, and mean ± SD CT follow‐up was 1.0 ± 1.1 years, including 73 primary surgeries (67%), 81 men (74%), and 52 right‐sided operative shoulders (48%). In all 109 patients, the predicted glenoid width (28.5 ± 2.5 mm) was significantly smaller than the measured glenoid width (30.7 ± 4.2 mm) ( P < .001). A significant negative correlation was found between CT follow‐up time and the difference between measured and predicted glenoid width (i.e., measured and predicted glenoid width became more similar as time passed postoperatively). A cutoff time of 6.9 months was identified for graft remodeling (area under the curve, 0.759; P < .001). In patients with ≥6.9 months between surgery and postoperative CT (n = 65), there was no difference between predicted and measured postoperative glenoid width (28.6 ± 2.6 mm, 29.4 ± 3.7 mm, respectively; P = .099). In patients with <6.9 months between surgery and postoperative CT (n = 44), the predicted glenoid width was significantly smaller than the measured glenoid width (28.4 ± 2.3 mm, 32.7 ± 3.9 mm, respectively; P < .001). Conclusions Predicted and measured postoperative glenoid width did not differ significantly in patients who had undergone AAGR with at least 6.9 months between surgery and postoperative CT. These findings support the hypothesis that the allograft remodels following AAGR with DTA to restore the native glenoid size and architecture. Clinical Relevance These findings will help direct the size of bone blocks used in AAGR with DTA in the future to optimize surgical outcomes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".