The Latarjet Procedure in Patients With Subcritical Glenoid Bone Loss: Long-Term Results and Its Association With Graft Resorption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There are concerns that the Latarjet procedure for subcritical glenoid bone loss results in significant graft resorption and increased complications. Purpose: To (1) analyze the long-term results of the primary open Latarjet procedure in patients with subcritical preoperative glenoid bone loss and (2) find whether graft resorption influences these results. Study design: Case series, Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A total of 50 shoulders (n = 48 patients) underwent the primary open Latarjet procedure at a mean age of 27 years (range, 19-37 years) for recurrent anterior shoulder instability with subcritical glenoid bone loss (<15%). After a mean of 8.5 years (range, 6-13 years), signs of recurrent instability, shoulder function, and patient-reported outcome measures-including the West Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI); the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon (ASES) score; the subjective shoulder value (SSV)-were assessed. Computed tomography-morphometric analysis of graft resorption was conducted to define the pattern and volume of resorption, and its influence on clinical outcomes. Results: At the final follow-up, a significant increase in the SSV (65% to 84%; P < .001), with a relative WOSI score of 19% ± 17% and an ASES score of 91 ± 9, was observed. One shoulder (2%) sustained a recurrent traumatic shoulder dislocation after 6.75 years but did not require revision surgery. Five shoulders (10%) experienced a subluxation, and 6 shoulders (12%) had positive anterior apprehension. Significant (P < .001) graft resorption (mean, 24% of the total graft volume) was observed at the long-term follow-up, although no patient underwent revision surgery. Resorption was concentrated in the superior segment of the graft (75%; P < .001). Overall, graft resorption had no significant influence on any clinical outcome measure-including complications, pain, or signs of postoperative instability (P > .05). Conclusion: The primary open Latarjet procedure for subcritical glenoid bone loss (<15%) results in an excellent clinical outcome. Although significant graft resorption (ie, concentrated around the superior screw) can be expected at the long-term follow-up, it does not result in adverse clinical outcomes, with complication and recurrence rates comparable to results of the Latarjet procedure for larger glenoid bone loss.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".