ARTHROSCOPIC ANATOMIC GLENOID RECONSTRUCTION VERSUS BANKART AND REMPLISSAGE: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL COMPARING SAFETY PROFILES
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Bankart repair, Arthroscopic Anatomic Glenoid Reconstruction (AAGR) and Latarjet are three surgical options for treating recurrent anterior shoulder instability. Latarjet stands out for its superior effectiveness in preventing recurrence, making it a preferred choice when this is the primary concern. On the other hand, Bankart is widely recognized for its safety profile. Existing literature shows AAGR is comparable to Latarjet in terms of recurrence rates, but no previous high-level studies have directly compared Bankart repair with AAGR. In this single center, double blinded, randomized controlled trial, we aimed to compare the safety profile of arthroscopic Bankart repair with that of Arthroscopic Bankart repair plus AAGR. We hypothesized that AAGR is as safe as Bankart repair. Patients who experienced recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation with two or more incidents and aged between 16 and 60, with confirmed presence of subcritical glenoid bone loss on imaging including X-ray, and CT would be eligible for enrollment. Consented patients were randomized into two groups with a minimum of 12-month follow up. Safety profiles were evaluated based on 1) intra-operative complications (e.g., bleeding, nerve injury, screw issues), 2) perioperative complications (e.g., nerve and graft position), and 3) postoperative complications within the year (e.g., revision surgery, stiffness, subluxation, infection, chondrolysis). This study included 80 participants who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair and 73 participants who underwent arthroscopic AAGR with a minimum of 12-month follow-up. Both groups had comparable demographics, including age (32.6±9.8 years for Bankart, and 31.8±9.6 years for AAGR), BMI (25.2±3.8 for Bankart, and 25.2±4.2 for AAGR) and clinical follow-up time (3.4±2.1 years for Bankart, and 3.2±2.0 for AAGR). The majority of patients in both groups were male, with 76% for Bankart and 81% for AAGR. Neither group reported intra-operative or perioperative complications. Among the participants, 15% of participants who received a Bankart repair experienced re-dislocation event compared to 1.4% of participants who received an AAGR repair (p=0.003). Subluxations were reported in the Bankart group, but they were not observed in the AAGR group. Neither group experienced any other complications, such as infection, chondrolysis, neurovascular deficits or stiffness. In the AAGR group, all grafts were consistently positioned in the ideal 3-5 o'clock location in the sagittal plane. Also, in the mediolateral plane, most patients showed the graft positioned flush with glenoid with 100% healing. This study demonstrates that AAGR appears to be as safe as Bankart repair with proper graft positions and the absence of nerve complications, bleeding, or other complications at a minimum 12-month follow-up. Long-term follow-up of clinical and radiographic outcomes is required to make a more comprehensive comparison between the two procedures.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
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; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».