MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154929052 · doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2015.03.005

Arthroscopic Suture Anchor Fixation of Bony Bankart Lesions: Clinical Outcome, Magnetic Resonance Imaging Results, and Return to Sports

2015· article· en· W2154929052 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Johannes E. Plath, Matthias J. Feucht, Robert Bangoj, Frank Martetschläger, Klaus Wörtler, Gernot Seppel, Mohamed Aboalata, Thomas Tischer, Andreas B. Imhoff, Stephan Vogt

Bibliographic record

VenueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBankart lesionSurgeryMagnetic resonance imagingBankart repairShouldersAnterior shoulderCoracoidArthroscopySubluxationFibrous jointRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcome, return to sporting activity, and postoperative articular cartilage and bony morphology of shoulders that underwent arthroscopic suture anchor repair of bony Bankart lesions. METHODS: The inclusion criteria for this retrospective study were anterior glenoid rim fractures after traumatic shoulder instability that were treated with arthroscopic suture anchor repair. Patients were surveyed by a questionnaire including sport-specific outcome, Rowe score, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, and Oxford Instability Score. Three-tesla magnetic resonance imaging could be performed in 30 patients to assess osseous integration, glenoid reconstruction, and signs of osteoarthritis. RESULTS: From November 1999 to April 2010, 81 patients underwent an anterior bony Bankart repair in our department (50 arthroscopic suture anchor repairs, 5 arthroscopic screw fixations, and 26 open repairs). The 55 arthroscopic repairs comprised a consecutive cohort of patients treated by a single surgeon. Of the 50 patients in the suture anchor group, 45 (90%) were available for evaluation. At 82 ± 31 months postoperatively, the mean Rowe score was 85.9 ± 20.5 points, the mean Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score was 89.4% ± 14.7%, and the mean Oxford Instability Score was 13.6 ± 5.4 points. Compared with the contralateral shoulder, all scores showed a significantly reduced outcome (P < .001, P < .001, and P < .001, respectively). A redislocation occurred in 3 patients (6.6%). Regarding satisfaction, 35 patients (78%) were very satisfied, 9 (20%) were satisfied, and 1 was partly satisfied. Overall, 95% of patients returned to any sporting activity after surgery. The number of sports disciplines (P < .001), duration (P = .005), level (P = .02), and risk category (P = .013) showed a significant reduction compared with the pretrauma condition. However, only 19% of patients reported that shoulder complaints were the reason for the reduction in activity. Nonunion occurred in 16.6%, with a higher frequency in patients with chronic lesions (P = .031). Anatomic reduction was achieved in 72%, the medial step-off in patients with nonanatomic reduction averaged 1.8 ± 0.9 mm, and the remaining glenoid defect size averaged 6.8% ± 7.3%. Full-thickness cartilage defects of the anterior glenoid were detected in 70% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic suture anchor repair may enable an anatomic reduction of bony Bankart lesions with no or only minimal articular steps and provides successful midterm outcomes concerning clinical scores, recurrence, and patient satisfaction. The return to activity is limited for various, mostly non-shoulder-related causes. Chronic lesions may have an inferior healing potential; therefore early surgical stabilization of acute Bankart fragments is suggested to avoid possible nonunion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations57
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related SurgerySame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207