A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Biomechanical comparison of open and arthroscopic Latarjet procedures. | LitMetric

Purpose: To biomechanically compare the effectiveness of the standard open and arthroscopic techniques of the Latarjet procedure to address a critical anterior glenoid defect in combination with a capsular insufficiency.

Methods: Translation testing of 12 human cadaveric shoulder specimens was performed in a robot-assisted setup under 3 different conditions: (1) intact/vented shoulder joint, (2) combined anterior glenoid bone and capsular defect, and (3) open and arthroscopic Latarjet procedures. Testing was performed for each condition in 2 test positions: 60° of glenohumeral abduction with neutral rotation (ABD position) and 60° of abduction and external rotation (ABER position). Each position was tested with a passive humerus load of 30 N in the anterior, inferior, and anteroinferior directions. Translational movement of the humeral head was evaluated with and without the application of a 10-N load to the conjoint tendon (CJT).

Results: In the ABD position, translations after the open Latarjet procedure significantly differed from the arthroscopic technique in the anterior and anteroinferior directions when testing was performed with loading of the CJTs (CJT loading). Without CJT loading, the open Latarjet technique showed significantly lower translations in the anterior, inferior (P = .004), and anteroinferior (P = .001) testing directions in the ABD position. In the ABER position, the arthroscopic procedure showed no significant difference compared with the standard open procedure.

Conclusions: We found a superior stabilization effect of the open Latarjet technique in the ABD position. The difference is ascribed to the anterior capsular repair, which was performed within the open technique and omitted during the arthroscopic procedure.

Clinical Relevance: The reduction of translation in a pure abduction position of the arm is more effectively performed with a conventional open Latarjet technique that includes a capsular repair. In combined ABER position, there was no difference found between the open and arthroscopic Latarjet techniques.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2012.12.003DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

open arthroscopic
16
abd position
16
open latarjet
16
arthroscopic latarjet
12
aber position
12
latarjet technique
12
open
10
position
9
latarjet
8
latarjet procedures
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!