Excellent Functional Outcomes and Low Complication Rates Following Knotless Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Systematic Review of Clinical and Biomechanical Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To provide a comprehensive review of the current clinical and biomechanical evidence for the use of knotless suture anchors during arthroscopic Bankart repair. METHODS: A comprehensive search of 5 electronic databases from inception to July 2020 was performed for clinical and biomechanical studies in English evaluating outcomes following arthroscopic Bankart repair using knotless suture anchors. Two independent reviewers assessed articles for inclusion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORs) criteria. Clinical outcomes of interest and key findings from biomechanical studies were summarized. RESULTS: Ten clinical studies (430 knotless repairs), including 4 cohort studies directly comparing knotless (N = 117) to knot-tying repairs (N = 192), were deemed eligible. Four biomechanical studies were also identified. Heterogeneity and the lack of randomized studies precluded data pooling and quantitative meta-analysis. Rates of redislocation ranged from 2.2% to 14.7% and 1.5% to 23.8% for knot-tying and knotless repair, respectively. Both knot-tying and knotless repair demonstrated excellent postoperative functional outcome, as assessed by visual analog scale, Constant-Murley, Rowe, and QuickDASH scores, with 80% to 94% of patients returning to sports participation. Biomechanical studies showed similar stiffness and load to failure between knot-tying and knotless repairs, with the most common mode of failure being retear at the suture-soft tissue interface. CONCLUSIONS: Current level II to IV clinical and biomechanical evidence supports knotless arthroscopic Bankart repair as an effective procedure with excellent functional outcomes and low rates of complication and reoperation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of level II to IV studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".