Innovations in Arthroscopic and Open Shoulder Stabilization Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shoulder instability management has undergone important evolution and changes in the last few decades due to better understanding of biomechanics of this pathology and with the advancement of arthroscopic techniques that allow better management of these lesions. Arthroscopic Bankart Repair (ABR) has been accepted as the standard procedure for anterior shoulder instability with minimal or no bone loss, and the addition of remplissage has improved outcomes for patients with Hill Sachs lesions. However, there are several controversies regarding surgical management of shoulder instability, especially when there is glenoid bone loss. The open Latarjet procedure is often considered the gold standard when treating bone loss; however, the complications associated with this technique have encouraged research for alternate techniques using the long head of the biceps and free bone grafts. Dynamic Anterior Stabilization (DAS) and Arthroscopic Anatomic Glenoid Reconstruction (AAGR) with bone block grafts have been gaining popularity and are associated with excellent mid-term outcomes. This article summarises the latest innovations in arthroscopic and open shoulder stabilization surgery.
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".