Minimum 10-Year Follow-up of Arthroscopic Intra-articular Bankart Repair Using Bioabsorbable Tacks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are few long-term studies evaluating functional outcomes and rates of arthrosis after arthroscopic Bankart repair with bioabsorbable tacks. PURPOSE: We evaluated the clinical and radiographic results of arthroscopic Bankart repair using intra-articular bioabsorbable tacks at a minimum of 10 years' follow-up. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: Thirty-two consecutive patients were retrospectively identified. Twenty patients (63%) were evaluated at a mean follow-up of 13.5 years (range, 10.75-17.5 years) and average age of 43 years (range, 28-73 years). The surgical shoulder (SS) was compared with a healthy control shoulder (CS) in 15 of 20 patients. Outcome tools included the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) and Disabilities of the Shoulder, Arm, and Hand (DASH). Blinded, independent evaluators performed physical examinations and reviewed radiographs. RESULTS: Thirteen patients (65%) had stable shoulders, 5 of 7 (25%) failed by dislocation, and 2 of 7 (10%) failed by signs of anterior instability on examination. Three patients underwent revision stabilization surgery. Average time to failure was 4.2 years (range, 0.25-14.7 years). Average WOSI and DASH scores were 80% and 7.3, respectively. The CS faired better than SS in WOSI scores (97% vs 83%, respectively; P = .008), main DASH scores (0.39 vs 6.79, respectively; P = .024), and the DASH sports module (0.00 vs 10.94, respectively; P = .043). Patients lost 5.9° of passive forward flexion (P = .031) and 4.3° of passive external rotation (P = .001). Forty percent returned to their preoperative sports level. Higher grades of arthrosis were seen in the SS (20% absent, 40% mild, 25% moderate, and 15% severe) versus CS (P = .002). CONCLUSION: At long-term follow-up, 65% of patients treated with an arthroscopic Bankart repair using bioabsorbable tacks had a well-functioning, stable shoulder. Disability scores were greatest with sports; however, the majority of patients had well-preserved ranges of motion and good functional WOSI scores. Despite this, 40% had evidence of moderate to severe glenohumeral arthrosis.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".