Randomized controlled trial of arthroscopic electrothermal capsulorrhaphy with Bankart repair and isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Electrothermal arthroscopic capsulorrhaphy (ETAC) was introduced as an adjunct to shoulder stabilization surgery to address capsular laxity in the treatment of traumatic anterior dislocation. No previous RCT has compared arthroscopic Bankart repair with ETAC of the medial glenohumeral ligament and anterior band of the inferior glenohumeral ligament versus undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair alone. Our hypothesis was that there would be no difference in quality of life between these two groups. Complication/failure rates were also compared. METHODS: Eighty-eight patients were randomly assigned to receive arthroscopic Bankart repair with (n = 44) or without ETAC (n = 44). Post-operative visits occurred at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months with WOSI, ASES, and Constant scores completed, and rates of dislocation/subluxation were determined. RESULTS: Data on 74 patients were analysed, with the rest lost to follow-up. There were no differences between groups at any post-surgery time points for WOSI, ASES, or Constant scores (n.s.). Eight patients in the no-ETAC group and 7 in the ETAC group were considered failures (n.s.). CONCLUSIONS: No benefits in patient-reported outcome or recurrence rates using ETAC were found. Mean WOSI scores 2 years post-surgery were virtually identical for the two groups. ETAC could not be shown to provide benefit or detriment when combined with arthroscopic labral repair for traumatic anterior instability of the shoulder. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".