MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7083463168 · doi:10.1177/2325967125s00105

Paper 48: Distal Tibia Allograft for Recurrent Shoulder Instability: A Comparison of Open Fresh versus Arthroscopic Frozen Grafts

2025· article· en· W7083463168 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiographyRetrospective cohort studyTibiaAnterior shoulderFrozen shoulderCohortArthroscopyComplication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: To compare clinical and radiographic outcomes between patients undergoing glenoid reconstruction with frozen DTA and a matched cohort of patients with fresh DTA Methods: A retrospective review was performed of consecutive patients with a minimum of 5% anterior glenoid bone loss (GBL) associated with recurrent anterior shoulder instability who underwent stabilization with either open or arthroscopic DTA glenoid reconstruction and had a minimum of two-year follow up. Consecutive patients undergoing frozen DTA were matched in a 1-to-1 format to patients undergoing fresh DTA by age, body mass index and number of previous shoulder operations. Patients were evaluated postoperatively with the Western Ontario shoulder instability index (WOSI) score, pain relief, and for episodes of recurrent instability. All patients also underwent postoperative imaging evaluation with computed tomography (CT) in which graft incorporation and allograft angle were measured. Statistical analyses were performed using Mann-Whitney U tests and Chi-square tests, respectively, to compare continuous outcomes and categorical variables. Results: A total of 100 patients (50 fresh open DTA, 50 frozen arthroscopic DTA) with a median ± IQR age of 32.0 ± 6.7 and 27.9 ± 15.9 years respectively, were analyzed at minimum 2 years follow-up. There were significantly more males (98% vs 70%, p<0.01) in the fresh DTA group and also had significantly greater glenoid bone loss defects (25% ± 6% vs 21% ± 11, p<0.01). Patients in both groups experienced significant WOSI score improvement (p < 0.05) Both groups demonstrated similar clinical outcomes regarding improvement postoperatively (p=0.61), pain relief (p=0.09), and recurrence rates (p=0.31). There was only one case of recurrent instability among the groups in the open fresh DTA cohort. Analysis of CT data at an average of 15 months postoperatively showed no significant difference between fresh versus frozen DTA groups for average Graft-glenoid interface healing rate, allograft angle, and final anterior-posterior dimensions (graft + glenoid). Conclusions: Open fresh and arthroscopic frozen DTA for anatomic glenoid reconstruction in patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability results in a clinically stable joint with comparable outcomes and solid allograft healing rates. Additional long-term studies are needed to determine if these results are maintained over time.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207