Arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage for non-engaging Hill-Sachs lesion in professional collision athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The present study aimed to determine whether arthroscopic remplissage with Bankart repair is an effective treatment for improving outcomes for collision athletes with Bankart and non-engaging Hill-Sachs lesions. Methods Twenty collision athletes underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair with posterior capsulotenodesis (B&R group) and were evaluated retrospectively, using pre- and postoperative WOSI (Western Ontario Shoulder Instability), EQ-5D (EuroQOL five dimensions), EQ-VAS (EuroQol-visual analogue scale) scores and Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV). The recurrence and re-operation rates were compared to a matched group with isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair (B group). Results The mean age was 25 years with an mean follow-up of 26 months. All mean scores improved with SSV of 90%. There was a mean deficit in external rotation at the side of 10°. One patient was treated with hydrodilatation for frozen shoulder. One patient had residual posterior discomfort but no apprehension in the B&R group compared to 5% persistent apprehension in the B group. In comparison, the recurrence and re-operation rates were 5% and 30% ( p = 0.015), 5% and 35% ( p = 0.005) in the B&R and B groups, respectively. Conclusions This combined technique demonstrated good outcomes, with lower recurrence rates in high-risk collision athletes. The slight restriction in external rotation does not significantly affect any clinical outcomes and return to play.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".