Bankart Repair With Subscapularis Augmentation in Athletes With Shoulder Hyperlaxity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to demonstrate that arthroscopic Bankart repair with associated arthroscopic subscapularis augmentation (ASA) could be a valid surgical option in the treatment of anterior shoulder instability, in collision and contact sports athletes, affected by shoulder hyperlaxity. METHODS: In total, 591 arthroscopic Bankart repairs plus ASA were performed in 6 shoulder centers from 2009 to 2017. Inclusion criteria were the following: collision and contact sports activities, recurrent anterior instability associated with hyperlaxity and glenoid bone loss (GBL) < 15%. Exclusion criteria were GBL > 15%, voluntary instability, multidirectional instability, pre-existing osteoarthritis and throwing athletes. The minimum follow-up was 24 months. Hyperlaxity was clinically evaluated according to Neer and Coudane-Walch tests. Before surgery, all patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography scanning. Pico area method was used to assess the percentage of GBL. Patients were operated on by 6 surgeons, and their functional outcomes were evaluated by 2 independent observers. The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), Rowe, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores were used to assess results. RESULTS: Overall, 397 patients with evidence of shoulder hyperlaxity (positive sulcus sign in ER1 position and Coudane-Walch test > 85°) met all inclusion criteria. The mean WOSI score was 321; the mean Rowe score rose from 68.5 to 92.5 (P = .037), and the ASES score rose from 71.5 to 97.4 (P = .041). Seven patients (1.6%) had atraumatic redislocation, and 9 patients (2.2%) had post-traumatic redislocation. At final follow-up the mean functional deficit of external rotation was 15° with the arm in adduction (ER1 position) and 10° in abduction (ER2 position). CONCLUSIONS: The Bankart repair plus ASA has been demonstrated to be safe and effective for restoring joint stability in patients practicing collision and contact sports or affected by chronic anterior shoulder instability associated with GBL (<15%) and hyperlaxity, without compromising external rotation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".