Functional outcome and the structural integrity of arthroscopic Bankart repair: a prospective trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recurrent anterior shoulder dislocations are common in young patients with Bankart lesions. Arthroscopic repair is an established treatment; however, recurrent instability occurs in up to 35% of patients. It is unclear whether recurrence is the result of a failure of the surgical repair to heal or a repeat injury. The aim of the present pilot study was to assess radiographic healing of Bankart lesions 6 months post surgical repair and identify any correlations between radiographic findings and subsequent recurrent dislocations. METHODS: Eighteen patients underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair for recurrent instability. Magnetic resonance (MR) arthrograms were obtained both pre-operatively and 6 months postoperatively. Standard T1 and T2 views were obtained along with an abduction and external rotation (ABER) view. Patients were followed for a minimum of 4 years for the risk of recurrence, and functional outcomes were obtained, including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Subjective Shoulder Scale, Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, Oxford Shoulder Instability Score and 12-Item Short Form Health Survey. Scores were correlated with pre-operative and postoperative MR findings. RESULTS: Six of 18 patients developed recurrent instability. We could not identify correlations between reconstructed labrum (labral bumper) position, failure at suture sites and ABER findings with recurrent instability or functional outcome. Paradoxically, there was a nonstatistically significant trend for patients with no clefts between the labrum and the glenoid at any points along the repair to have worse outcomes than patients with partial or complete clefts. CONCLUSIONS: In our pilot study, MR arthrogram was used to evaluate the labrum in detail 6 months postoperatively. Despite its proven ability to detect labral lesions, we were unable to demonstrate any features on postoperative MR arthrogram that predicted either functional outcome or recurrent instability. At 6 months post operation, functional recovery and the risk of recurrence may not depend on the anatomical appearance of the labrum alone.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".