Arthroscopic Capsular Plication for Atraumatic Instability Results in Improved Patient-reported Outcome Measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after arthroscopic capsulolabral plication in patients with atraumatic instability (AI). A retrospective review of 282 cases from 2012 to 2020 identified 45 patients meeting inclusion criteria. The cohort was 60% female with a mean age and body mass index of 25.4 years and 25.5 kg/m 2 , respectively. Postoperative assessment showed significant improvements in shoulder function and pain with a mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon (ASES) score increase from 53.0 and 76.0 ( P <0.0001), and a mean Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) indicating 82.92% of normal shoulder function. Patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS) experienced higher rates of recurrent instability and revision surgery. Despite these challenges, arthroscopic capsulolabral plication remains a viable surgical option for AI in patients unresponsive to conservative management. Level of Evidence: Level IV 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".