MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7075731356

Complications following arthroscopic fixation of acromioclavicular separations: a systematic review of the literature

2015· review· en· W7075731356 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group) · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTheoretical and Computational Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcromioclavicular jointOrthopedic surgeryConfidence intervalFixation (population genetics)Cochrane LibraryArthroscopyMeta-analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Jarret M Woodmass,1 John G Esposito,1 Yohei Ono,1,2 Atiba A Nelson,1 Richard S Boorman,1 Gail M Thornton,1,3 Ian KY Lo1 1Department of Surgery, Section of Orthopaedic Surgery, McCaig Institute for Bone and Joint Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada; 2Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan; 3Department of Orthopaedics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada Purpose: Over the past decade, a number of arthroscopic or arthroscopically assisted reconstruction techniques have emerged for the management of acromioclavicular (AC) separations. These techniques provide the advantage of superior visualization of the base of the coracoid, less soft tissue dissection, and smaller incisions. While these techniques have been reported to provide excellent functional results with minimal complications, discrepancies exist within the literature. This systematic review aims to assess the rate of complications following these procedures. Methods: Two independent reviewers completed a search of Medline, Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library entries up to December 2013. The terms “Acromioclavicular Joint (MeSH)” OR “acromioclavicular* (text)” OR “coracoclavicular* (text)” AND “Arthroscopy (MeSH)” OR “Arthroscop* (text)” were used. Pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated assuming a random-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 statistic. Level of evidence: IV Results: A total of 972 abstracts met the search criteria. After removal of duplicates and assessment of inclusion/exclusion criteria, 12 articles were selected for data extraction. The rate of superficial infection was 3.8% and residual shoulder/AC pain or hardware irritation occurred at a rate of 26.7%. The rate of coracoid/clavicle fracture was 5.3% and occurred most commonly with techniques utilizing bony tunnels. Loss of AC joint reduction occurred in 26.8% of patients. Conclusion: Arthroscopic AC reconstruction techniques carry a distinct complication profile. The TightRope/Endobutton techniques, when performed acutely, provide good radiographic outcomes at the expense of hardware irritation. In contrast, graft reconstructions in patients with chronic AC separations demonstrated a high risk for loss of reduction. Fractures of the coracoid/clavicle remain a significant complication occurring predominately with techniques utilizing bony tunnels. Keywords: fracture, reduction, hardware irritation

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.005
Bibliometrics0.0130.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations55
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group)Same topicTheoretical and Computational PhysicsFrench-language works237,207