ARTHROSCOPIC ANATOMIC GLENOID RECONSTRUCTION DOES NOT AFFECT SUBSCAPULARIS MUSCLE COMPARED TO LATARJET
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Latarjet technique has been the gold standard treatment for glenoid bone loss following anterior shoulder instability due to its low recurrence rate, but other techniques including arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction (AAGR) have shown similar outcomes with fewer complications. The Latarjet requires a subscapularis split or take-down for placement of the coracoid, which may compromise post-operative subscapularis quality and strength. The AAGR is a subscapularis-sparing technique that obviates the need for a subscapularis split by using a far medial (Halifax) portal for graft placement. The purpose of this study was to compare subscapularis muscle changes before and after surgery between Latarjet and AAGR patients. This study was a retrospective analysis of patients treated surgically with AAGR and Latarjet that had pre- and post-operative CT scans. Patients' charts were reviewed to obtain demographic information, as well as CT scan cross-sectional area measurements of the subscapularis muscle on pre- and post-surgery scans. We used a pre-existing validated formula (volume=[0.06(A+C)]−13.02) for calculating the volume of the subscapularis pre- and post-operatively based on the cross-sectional area of the muscle. Our cohort included 40 patients in each group with pre- and post-operative CT scans. On average, patients had a CT scan one year post-operatively. Pre-operatively, patients were estimated to have similar subscapularis volumes (p>0.05). We found that the change in medial area of the subscapularis muscle was significantly higher in the Latarjet group (−325.8 mm2) compared to the AAGR group (−73.2 mm2) (p<0.05). We found that AAGR patients had a 3% increase in subscapularis volume post-operatively, while the Latarjet patients had 3% decrease in volume (p<0.05). The AAGR technique is subscapularis-sparing both in surgical technique and structural outcomes, resulting in comparable subscapularis cross-sectional area and volume pre- and post-operatively. Latarjet using a subscapularis split results in lower subscapularis medial volumetric area.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".