Outcomes After Arthroscopic Posterior Labral Repair With All-Suture Anchors in Football Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Posterior glenoid labral injuries are more common in football players than in the general population. Arthroscopic repair with all-suture anchors has proven to be an effective technique to address other abnormalities, allowing for low-profile constructs that minimize damage to surrounding tissue. Few studies have examined the outcomes of posterior labral repair with all-suture anchors in football players. Hypothesis: It was hypothesized that after labral repair with all-suture anchors, functional outcomes would improve, revision rates would be low, return-to-sport rates would be high, and clinical outcomes would be comparable with those seen after arthroscopic repair performed with traditional solid anchors among football players. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: The authors identified patients in the institution's ongoing data repository who were football players when they underwent arthroscopic posterior glenoid labral repair using all-suture anchors. The authors collected baseline (preoperative) and follow-up demographic, clinical, surgical, and functional outcome data, with a minimum follow-up time of 2 years. Patient-reported outcome measures included the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score and the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). Results: The authors identified 52 male football athletes (mean age at surgery, 18.5 years) with both baseline and follow-up data (mean follow-up time, 3.8 years), with all competing at either the high school (n = 41 [79%]) or collegiate (n = 11 [21%]) level. Mean outcome scores improved significantly from baseline to follow-up for both the ASES score (baseline: 63.2; follow-up: 97.1) and the WOSI (baseline: 48.1; follow-up: 94.0). Overall, 37 of 52 (71%) returned to football at their preinjury level after surgery. However, only 38 of 52 athletes attempted to return to sport. Among athletes who attempted to return to sport, 97% (37/38) were able to return. There were no significant differences in follow-up ASES or WOSI scores between high school and collegiate athletes, between blocking and nonblocking positions, or between isolated posterior labral repair and combined labral repair. Conclusion: The results demonstrated excellent outcomes, including large and significant improvements in ASES and WOSI scores, in football players. While 29% did not return to football, 97% of those who attempted to return to play did so at their preinjury level. This study shows encouraging results for the use of all-suture anchors for posterior labral repair in this population of 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".