Outcomes of Arthroscopic Bankart Repair in Collision Versus Noncollision Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to compare the recurrence rate of arthroscopic Bankart repair with suture anchors in collision vs noncollision athletes. Sixty-four patients who underwent arthroscopic shoulder stabilization using suture anchors for recurrent anterior dislocation were identified. Forty-three patients (22 collision and 21 noncollision) were evaluated at a minimum 24-month follow-up. The recurrence rate was reported, and functional outcomes (American Shoulder and Elbow Society, Western Ontario Shoulder Index, and Short Form 12) were evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square test and Student's t test with a 95% confidence interval and a significance level set at a P value less than .05. The overall dislocation recurrence rate was 4.6% (2 of 43 patients); the dislocation recurrence rate in collision athletes was 9% (2 of 22 patients), and no redislocations occurred in noncollision athletes. No statistical differences existed in Western Ontario Shoulder Index score (73.5% in collision and 73.4% in noncollision athletes; P=.831), American Shoulder and Elbow Society score (91.2 in collision and 80.7 in noncollision athletes; P=.228), and Short Form 12 score (108.5 in collision and 101.2 in noncollision athletes; P=.083). Average external rotation loss was 6.8° in collision and 5.5° in noncollision athletes (P=.864). Ninety percent of collision athletes vs 95% of noncollision athletes were satisfied. Seventy-three percent of collision and 81% of noncollision athletes were able to return to sport at their preinjury levels. Collision athletes had higher recurrence rates after arthroscopic shoulder stabilization compared with noncollision athletes, but no statistical difference was found. Functional outcomes according to American Shoulder and Elbow Society, Western Ontario Shoulder Index, and Short Form 12 were similar.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".