Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes of Arthroscopic Glenoid Labrum Repair With the BioKnotless Suture Anchor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although arthroscopic glenoid labrum repair using the BioKnotless anchor is common, the benefits and efficacy have not been fully evaluated. HYPOTHESIS: BioKnotless suture anchor is a clinically and radiologically suitable material for arthroscopic labral repair. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: Ninety-seven patients underwent arthroscopic glenoid labrum repair with BioKnotless anchor between July 2004 and December 2005. Thirty-seven patients had traumatic anterior instability and 60 patients had an isolated superior labrum, anterior-posterior (SLAP) lesion. The mean age at surgery was 36.0 years (range, 15-66); the average follow-up was 34.1 months (range, 24-54). Clinical outcomes were evaluated using range of motion and various functional evaluation scores including sports activity. Pain and patient satisfaction were measured using a visual analog scale (VAS). Computed tomography arthrography was conducted in 73 patients at least 1 year after surgery for radiologic evaluation. RESULTS: In patients with instability, the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability index and Rowe score improved from 53.2 to 85.9 and from 68.7 to 92.7, respectively. Return to normal recreation and sports were possible in 30 patients (81.1%); the mean satisfaction VAS was 9.2. There was 1 postoperative dislocation, and the apprehension test was positive in 1 case. Postoperative range of motion including external rotation was not different. In patients with a SLAP lesion, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score and Constant score improved from 67.3 to 96.0 and 79.1 to 96.8, respectively. Pain VAS decreased from 6.0 to 0.4, and the mean satisfaction VAS was 9.4. Return to normal recreation and sports were possible in 50 patients (83.3%). All labra were found to have firmly healed to bony glenoid rim without anchor-related osteolysis in postoperative CT arthrography. CONCLUSION: Clinically and radiologically, the BioKnotless anchor appears to be an acceptable alternative for arthroscopic labrum repair, and a suitable material allowing the avoidance of certain troublesome drawbacks of the conventional knot-tying suture anchor.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".