No Difference in Outcomes After Remplissage or Open Bankart Repair Plus Inferior Capsular Shift in Collision and Contact Athletes With Subcritical Glenoid Bone Loss ≤10% and Off‐Track Hill‐Sachs Lesion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare functional outcomes, recurrence rate, range of motion (ROM), and return to sport between arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage (BR) and open Bankart repair with inferior capsular shift (OBICS) in contact and collision athletes with recurrent anterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A prospective comparative cohort study of 90 patients separated into 2 study groups (OBICS and BR) of 45 collision and contact athletes each was conducted. All athletes had subcritical glenoid bone loss ≤10% and off-track Hill-Sach lesions. A minimum follow-up period of 5 years was established. Pre- and postoperative assessments of each group, as well as between them, were carried out. The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scale were used to assess subjective outcomes. Recurrence rate, ROM, and return to sport were evaluated as objective outcomes. RESULTS: Significant differences were reported in the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index and ASES scores between preoperative and postoperative values in each group. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups (P = .68 and .28). Patient rates achieving the minimal clinically important difference and the patient-acceptable satisfactory state for ASES were 81.2% OBICS, 80% BR, and 78.6% and 76.5%, respectively. Although there was no significant difference between the 2 groups (P = .74), there were 3 dislocations (7.5%) in the OBICS group and 5 (12.5%) in the BR group. No significant differences in ROM were found between the 2 groups. However, significant differences in external rotation were reported in the BR group pre- compared with postoperatively (P = .03 and .04). CONCLUSIONS: We found no differences between the outcomes of the 2 groups. Depending on surgeon preference, BR or OBICS may be safely indicated in collision or contact athletes with subcritical glenoid bone loss ≤10% and off-track Hill-Sach lesions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective comparative 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".