MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3208372613 · doi:10.1177/2325967121s00345

Failure Rates in Contact versus Non-Contact Athletes Following Arthroscopic Inferior Capsular Shift at 10-Year Follow-Up (237)

2021· article· en· W3208372613 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kevin D. Plancher, Thomas Evely, Stephanie C. Petterson

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineShouldersBankart repairAthletesBankart lesionAnterior shoulderElbowSurgeryArthroscopyPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Arthroscopic Bankart repair has become the surgical procedure of choice for many in the United States, over the Latarjet in Europe, for first time anterior shoulder instability with minimal bone loss, less than 20%. However, high recurrence rates in contact athletes have led many to proceed with open type procedures. Our purpose was to compare failure rates and functional outcomes of the arthroscopic inferior capsular shift in contact and non-contact athletes. We hypothesized that contact and non-contact athletes would exhibit excellent functional outcomes and return to sport with low recurrence rates. Methods: A consecutive series of 69 shoulders in 61 contact and non-contact athletes underwent an arthroscopic inferior capsular shift with ≥3 suture anchors by a single surgeon (1999-2018). Thirty shoulders in 26 contact athletes (6 women; 25.3±8.1 years) and 39 shoulders in 35 non-contact athletes (7 women; 34.8±10.0 years) were included. Inclusion criteria were complete anterior inferior labral detachment (6 unit hours) and ≥2-year follow-up. Exclusion criteria included multidirectional instability, engaging Hill Sachs lesion or glenoid bone loss >30%. A modified 3-portal technique utilizing the outside-in method was employed. A conservative rehabilitation program was followed with return to sport no sooner than 3 months in non-contact, 4-5 months in contact, and 9 months in throwing athletes. Functional outcomes were measured using Constant Scores, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Score, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), Melbourne Instability Shoulder Scale (MISS), and Rowe. Forward elevation, external rotation at side and 90° abduction and internal rotation range of motion (ROM) were measured. Independent samples t-tests were used to assess differences in outcomes between contact and non-contact athletes (Bonferroni correction: p<0.006). Results: Follow-up was 11.0±3.5 years (range 2-16 years) in contact athletes and 12.2±4.3 years (range 2-21 years) in non-contact athletes (p=0.264). Contact athletes were significantly younger than non-contact athletes (p<0.0001). An average of 3.9±1.7 and 3.1±1.0 suture anchors were used in contact and non-contact groups, respectively (p=0.348). There were no significant differences in post-operative functional scores (all p>0.053) or shoulder ROM (all p>0.034) between groups. Forward flexion was 163.75±16.8° pre-operatively and 168.89±13.0° post-operatively in contact athletes (p=0.212) and 162.5±13.7° preoperatively and 170±7.7° post-operatively in non-contact athletes (p=0.005). External rotation at the side was 59.04±19.4° pre-operatively and 67.9±18.6° value post-operatively in contact athletes (p=0.094) and 52.94±25.1° pre-operatively and 62.83±14.3° post-operatively in non-contact athletes (p=0.062). External rotation at 90° abduction was 92.61±20.1° pre-operatively and 93.39±12.9° post-operatively in contact athletes (p=0.867) and 88.33±21.1° pre-operatively and 87.5±8.1° post-operatively in non-contact athletes (p=0.842).Internal rotation behind the back was to an average of T11 pre-operatively and T9 post-operatively in contact athletes (p=0.004) and L1 pre-operatively and T9 post-operatively in non-contact athletes (p=0.001).In contact and non-contact athletes, respectively, Rowe scores were 65.35±17.6 and 51.25±13.2 preoperatively and 89.22±17.6 and 96.25±12.4 post-operatively (p=0.002 and p<0.001); Constant Scores were 75.69±12.6 and 61.67±11.3 pre-operatively 85.79±19.6 and 89.71±13.6 post-operatively; ASES scores were 80.40±15.3 and 62.14±22.2 pre-operatively and 93.91±9.9 and 86.06±20.7 post-operatively (p<0.001 and p<0.001); MISS scores were 59.36±12.4 and 48.39±15.5 preoperatively and 88.20±13.5 and 75.75±19.7 post-operatively (p<0.001 and p<0.001); WOSI was 3.50±1.3 and 4.55±1.4 pre-operatively and 1.70±3.0 and 2.94±2.7 post-operatively (p=0.101 and p=0.066). Overall recurrence rate was 4.3% (3/69). Two contact athletes (2/30; 6.7%) and one non-contact athlete (1/39; 2.6%) experienced a traumatic recurrent instability event requiring revision surgery (p=0.439). These three patients underwent a revision arthroscopic inferior capsular shift with an additional 3-4 plication sutures and returned to pre-injury sports including hockey, football, skiing, and tennis without recurrence of instability at greater than 7 years following the revision surgery. Conclusions: Modified arthroscopic inferior capsular shift utilizing ≥3 suture anchors with plication sutures returns contact and non-contact athletes to sports with excellent functional outcomes, low recurrence rates (3/69), and full unrestricted ROM. While loss of ROM is a concern, particularly in overhead athletes, ROM was successfully restored in all patients, most notably in external rotation at 90° abduction. We recommend a modified arthroscopic inferior capsular shift with plication sutures as the primary procedure in all athletes with anterior instability with less than 30% bone loss excluding those with high Beighton scores rather than a Latarjet.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207