ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2020
Best implant choice for coracoid graft fixation during the Latarjet procedure depends on patients' morphometric considerations.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Coracoid process morphometry in Asians: a systematic review of computed tomography-based studies.Clinics in shoulder and elbow · 2026Review
- Arthroscopic double-screw Latarjet versus arthroscopic button-fixed Latarjet with Bankart repair.JSES international · 2026Article
- Short-Term Outcomes of a Structured Self-Rehabilitation Program After Mini-Open Latarjet Procedure in Military Personnel: A Prospective Observational Study.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Observational
- Three-dimensional computerized tomography reconstruction-based morphologic assessment of the coracoid process in an Asian population: Clinical implications for shoulder surgery.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Surgical Variations of the Modified Latarjet Procedure: A Literature Review and Video-Illustrated Surgical Technique.Cureus · 2024Review
- Size and morphology of the coracoid and glenoid in pediatric and adolescent patients: implications for Latarjet procedure.JSES international · 2023Article
- Effect of Preoperative MRI Coracoid Dimensions on Postoperative Outcomes of Latarjet Treatment for Anterior Shoulder Instability.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2022Article
- Biomechanical Analysis of Coracoid Stability After Coracoplasty: How Low Can You Go?Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the anthropometric dimensions of the coracoid process and the glenoid articular surface and to determine possible implications with the different commercially available Latarjet fixation techniques.
methodsIn a total of 101 skeletal scapulae the glenoid length (GL), the glenoid width (GW), the coracoid length (CL), the coracoid width (CW) and the coracoid thickness (CTh) were measured. In order to assess the ability of the transferred coracoid to restore the glenoid anatomy we created a hypothetical model of 10%, 15%, 20%, 25% and 30% glenoid bone loss. We analyzed four common surgical fixation techniques for the Latarjet procedure (4.5 mm screws, 3.75 mm screws, 3.5 mm screws, and 2.8 mm button). The distances from the superior-inferior and medio-lateral limits of the coracoid using the four different fixation methods were calculated. We hypothesized that the "safe distance" between the implant and the coracoid osteotomy should be at least equal to the diameter of the implant.
resultsThe intra and inter-observer reliability tests were almost perfect for all measurements. The mean GH was 36.8 ± 2.5 mm, the GW 26.4 ± 2.2 mm, the CL 23.9 ± 3 mm, the CW 13.6 ± 2.mm, and the mean CTh was 8.7 ± 1.3 mm. The CL was < 25 mm in 46% of the cases. In cases with 25% and 30% bone loss, the coracoid graft restored the glenoid anatomy in 96% and 79.2% of the cases. With the use of the 4.5 mm screws the "safe distance" was present in 56% of the cases, with the 3.75 mm screws in 85%, with the 3.5 mm screws in 87%, and with the 2.8 mm button in 98% of the cases. The distance from the medio-lateral limit of the coracoid could be significantly increased (up to 9 mm) when smaller-button implants are used.
conclusionsThe coracoid graft could not always restore glenoid defects of 30%. Larger implants could be positioned too close to the osteotomy and the "medio-lateral offset" of the coracoid could be increased with smaller implants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.