ArticleJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2026
Arthroscopic distal clavicle autograft with suture button fixation for shoulder instability with glenoid bone loss: a case series.
Article in JSES reviews, reports, and techniques, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Distal clavicle autograft (DCA) has garnered increasing popularity as a cost-effective and safe autograft for glenoid reconstruction in shoulder instability. The purpose of this study is to report the clinical outcomes of a single-surgeon case series of patients managed with arthroscopic DCA for glenoid bone loss with suture button fixation at minimum follow-up of 1 year. Methods: All cases of recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability treated with DCA by a single surgeon between January 2020 and December 2023 were reviewed. Patients were included if DCA was performed arthroscopically with 2 suture buttons for fixation, with minimum clinical follow-up of 1 year. Patients were evaluated post-operatively for recurrent instability or complications. Glenoid bone loss was measured using 3-dimensional reconstruction and best-fit circle methods on pre-operative computed tomography scans. Coracoclavicular (CC) distances were measured pre-operatively and post-operatively to assess for acromioclavicular joint instability and change in preoperative to post-operative CC distance was assessed with dependent Results: Eight patients were included. Average age was 32.6 years. There were 7 males and 1 female. At surgery, mean glenoid bone loss was 23.3% (range: 17.8%-30.8%). At harvest, the average length, thickness, and width of the DCA were 22.8 mm, 11.6 mm, and 11.3 mm, respectively. After preparation, the graft averaged 22.8 mm in length with a width and depth of 10 mm, respectively. At a mean follow-up of 2.6 years (range: 1.5-4.0 years), no patients had recurrent subluxation or dislocation. No evidence of CC ligament damage was noted; average preoperative and post-operative CC distances were 11.5 mm and 11.3 mm, respectively, with mean change of -0.7 mm (95% confidence interval: -4.8 to +3.4 mm, Conclusion: In this case series of patients who underwent arthroscopic glenoid reconstruction with DCA, we noted low complication rates and no evidence of recurrent instability.
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.