Combined Arthroscopic Bankart Repair and Remplissage for Recurrent Shoulder Instability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of our study was to summarize the available clinical evidence pertaining to the combined arthroscopic Bankart repair and remplissage procedure (BRR) for the management of recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability. METHODS: We searched Medline (1946 to the third week of November, 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase (1947 to the 50th week of 2012), and PubMed for studies that reported clinical outcome data at a minimum of 1 year after BRR. Two independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion, assessed methodological quality, and extracted relevant data. Clinical outcome data were pooled and summarized. RESULTS: Seven clinical studies with a total of 220 patients met the inclusion criteria. Mean patient age was 29 years and mean follow-up was 26 months. Among all studies, the pooled rate of recurrent dislocation after BRR was 3.4%. Compared with preoperative range of motion (ROM) and ROM after Bankart repair (BR) for similar pathologic conditions, there were no clinically significant losses in glenohumeral motion after BRR. Moreover, BRR resulted in favorable functional outcome scores and high patient satisfaction. Four studies reported on postoperative imaging and found high rates of healing and tissue fill-in at the site of infraspinatus tenodesis. CONCLUSIONS: After BRR, the rate of recurrent dislocation is low and there are no clinically significant losses in glenohumeral ROM. Moreover, functional outcome scores are good and there is a high rate of patient satisfaction. Going forward, there is a need for high-level clinical studies to support the findings of this systematic review and to develop an evidence-based approach to the management of patients with recurrent glenohumeral instability in the setting of a Hill-Sachs defect (HSD).
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".