Long-term Effectiveness and Outcome-Determining Factors of Arthroscopic Bankart Repair for Recreational Sports Population: An Assessment of 100 Patients With a Mean Follow-up of 12.7 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A limited number of studies have reported the long-term effectiveness of and associated factors for recurrence of anterior shoulder instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR). Purpose: To report the long-term clinical outcomes after ABR in a recreational sports population and identify the associated factors that influence the final instability status. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A retrospective study was performed in patients treated with ABR between 2007 and 2013 by a single surgeon. Patient data, magnetic resonance imaging measurements of bone loss and glenoid track, and intra- and perioperative factors were analyzed. After a minimum follow-up of 10 years, patient-reported outcomes including the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score, the Rowe score, the visual analog scale for pain and function, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, and sports activity were assessed. The current instability status was classified into 3 groups: stable, apprehensive, and redislocated. These groups were statistically compared with respect to outcomes and associated factors. Results: A total of 100 patients with a mean age of 22.4 ± 5.5 years and a mean follow-up of 12.7 ± 2.1 years were included. At the final follow-up, 38 patients (38%) showed recurrent symptoms: 19 patients (19%) with subjective apprehension and 19 patients (19%) with redislocation, including 10 patients (10%) with revision surgery. At the final follow-up, the redislocated group showed the lowest patient-reported outcomes and return to sports (both P < .001). The apprehensive group also showed a lower Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score ( P = .011), Rowe score ( P = .003), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score ( P = .027), and return to sports ( P = .005) than the stable group. Participation in contact sports ( P = .026), glenoid bone loss ( P = .005), size of Hill-Sachs lesion ( P = .009), and off-track lesions ( P = .016) were all associated with recurrent symptoms, whereas age <20 years ( P = .012), participation in contact sports ( P = .003), and off-track lesions ( P = .042) were associated with redislocation. Conclusion: After long-term follow-up in a recreational sports population, ABR demonstrated a 19% rate of subjective apprehension and 19% rate of redislocation, with a gradual decline in clinical outcomes and sports activity over time. Therefore, candidates for ABR should be selected based on consideration of risk factors such as off-track lesions, age <20 years, and participation in contact sports.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".