Long-term results of arthroscopic Bankart repair: Minimum 10 years of follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study investigated the long-term results of arthroscopic Bankart repair in terms of rates and timelines of recurrence of instability, with special interest in young adult patients aged ≤20 years. METHODS: Between 2000 and 2005, 186 shoulders [182 patients, 50 women, median age 26 (range 15-58) years] were operated on at a university hospital using arthroscopic Bankart repair because of instability after traumatic anteroinferior shoulder dislocation. Medical records were retrospectively reviewed and patients were assessed using postal questionnaires or telephone interview after a minimum of 10 years of follow-up [median 12.2 (range 10-16) years]. The primary outcome measure was recurrence of instability (assessed from 167 shoulders), other outcome measures included Oxford instability score (OIS), subjective shoulder value (SSV), and Western Ontario instability index (WOSI) (assessed from 157 shoulders). RESULTS: At the end of follow-up, 50/167 shoulders (30%) had recurrence of instability and 30/167 (18%) were subjected to reoperation due to instability symptoms. Twenty-six (52%) failures occurred within ≤2 years, 11 (22%) within 2-5 years, and 13 (26%) >5 years after surgery. Failure rate was 19/35 (54%) for patients aged ≤20 years and 31/132 (24%) for patients aged >20 years; reoperation rates were 11/35 (31%) and 19/132 (14%), respectively. Mean OIS was 20 (SD 9, range 12-50), SSV 83% (SD 21, range 10-100), and WOSI score 80 (SD 22, range 33-100). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one-third of patients had recurrence of instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair after a minimum of 10-year follow-up. Patients aged ≤20 years did poorly with more than half of the patients having recurrence; alternative stabilization techniques should probably be considered for these patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".