Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Using 1 Anterior Portal Has a Shorter Surgical Time and Comparable Clinical Results With the Standard 2‐Portal Technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To assess the modified 1 anterior portal Bankart repair and compare it to the 2‐portal Bankart repair in terms of surgical time, functional scores, and recurrent dislocation. Methods Patients who underwent Bankart repair from 2014 to 2021 were identified and separated into 2 groups: a modified 1 anterior portal group and a 2 anterior portal group. The inclusion criteria were being >18 years old, having a recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation with a Bankart lesion, and having a minimum 2‐year follow‐up. Patients were evaluated for their clinical results using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability index, and the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score pre‐ and postoperatively. The duration of surgery and recurrent instability were recorded. To prevent suture tangling in the modified 1‐portal group, 2 techniques were performed: “cannula in cannula” and “cannula in and out.” Results A total of 42 patients were included in this study, with 20 in the modified 1‐portal group and 22 in the 2‐portal group. There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups in clinical scores obtained after 2 years of surgery (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, P = .5; Western Ontario Shoulder Instability index, P = .22; and Oxford Shoulder Instability Score, P = .32). The average surgical duration in the modified 1‐portal group (65.7 ± 15.8) was significantly shorter than the average surgery duration in the 2‐portal group (81.1 ± 27.2) ( P = .03). There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups for recurrent instability ( P ≥ .999). Conclusions Bankart repair performed through a modified 1 anterior portal technique has a shorter surgical time and similar clinical outcomes as the 2‐portal technique. Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective cohort study.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".