Long-term outcomes following isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair: a 9- to 12-year follow-up
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BackgroundThe long-term outcomes following arthroscopic Bankart repair have been rarely reported. Because of its relative novelty, little is known about recurrent instability, postoperative arthritis, and patient satisfaction, particularly for well-established modern procedures. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes following arthroscopic Bankart repair.MethodsPatients who underwent isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair from 2003 to 2006 were retrospectively reviewed. Recurrent instability, radiographic, and clinical scores (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES], Simple Shoulder Test [SST], and Rowe scores) were evaluated. Patient factors (ie, age, gender, side, number of instability episodes, contact sports, and bone loss) were analyzed to determine the correlation with outcome measures.ResultsAmong the 98 patients (102 shoulders), we were able to contact 50 patients (51 shoulders, mean age 27.0 years, mean follow-up 121.2 months). Significant bone loss in glenoid and humerus was arthroscopically observed in 16 (31.4%) and 28 (54.9%) shoulders, respectively. Sixteen shoulders (31.4%) experienced recurrent instability. Recent radiographs were obtained for 38 shoulders, 14 (36.8%) of which showed moderate to severe arthritis. Clinical outcomes at follow-up were 89.3, 10.8, and 76.0 for ASES, SST, and Rowe scores, respectively. Neither recurrent instability nor arthritis was correlated with any patient factors.ConclusionWhen isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair was used in all patients with shoulder instability regardless of bony defect, postoperative recurrent instability and arthritis rates were unacceptably high. Additional procedures should be chosen after careful consideration of multiple patient factors. The long-term outcomes following arthroscopic Bankart repair have been rarely reported. Because of its relative novelty, little is known about recurrent instability, postoperative arthritis, and patient satisfaction, particularly for well-established modern procedures. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes following arthroscopic Bankart repair. Patients who underwent isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair from 2003 to 2006 were retrospectively reviewed. Recurrent instability, radiographic, and clinical scores (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES], Simple Shoulder Test [SST], and Rowe scores) were evaluated. Patient factors (ie, age, gender, side, number of instability episodes, contact sports, and bone loss) were analyzed to determine the correlation with outcome measures. Among the 98 patients (102 shoulders), we were able to contact 50 patients (51 shoulders, mean age 27.0 years, mean follow-up 121.2 months). Significant bone loss in glenoid and humerus was arthroscopically observed in 16 (31.4%) and 28 (54.9%) shoulders, respectively. Sixteen shoulders (31.4%) experienced recurrent instability. Recent radiographs were obtained for 38 shoulders, 14 (36.8%) of which showed moderate to severe arthritis. Clinical outcomes at follow-up were 89.3, 10.8, and 76.0 for ASES, SST, and Rowe scores, respectively. Neither recurrent instability nor arthritis was correlated with any patient factors. When isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair was used in all patients with shoulder instability regardless of bony defect, postoperative recurrent instability and arthritis rates were unacceptably high. Additional procedures should be chosen after careful consideration of multiple patient factors.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».