Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Versus Immobilization for a First Episode of an Anterior Shoulder Dislocation Before the Age of 25 Years: A Randomized Controlled Trial With 6-Year Follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The risk of recurrence after a first episode of an anterior shoulder dislocation (ASD) is high with nonoperative treatment in younger patients. In a previous study, arthroscopic labral repair (Bankart repair) reduced the risk of secondary shoulder dislocations and improved functional outcomes versus nonoperative treatment at 2-year follow-up. Purpose/Hypothesis: The aim of this study was to compare the results of arthroscopic Bankart repair and nonoperative treatment at a minimum of 6 years’ follow-up in patients aged ≤25 years. The hypothesis was that acute surgery would decrease the risk of recurrence and improve functional outcomes. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: We included patients aged between 18 and 25 years after a first episode of an ASD and divided them into 2 groups. The first group was treated surgically with arthroscopic Bankart repair in the initial 2 weeks after the dislocation, and the second group was treated nonoperatively. Both groups were immobilized for 3 weeks in internal rotation and followed the same physical therapy protocol. Follow-up was performed at a minimum of 6 years. The primary outcome measure was the recurrence of instability, defined as another ASD requiring closed reduction or a subluxation. Secondary outcome measures included the need for stabilization surgery; return to sport; and functional outcomes according to the quick version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH), Walch-Duplay score, and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). Results: There were 20 patients included in each group. The mean age at the time of inclusion was 21.4 ± 1.8 years. A total of 37 patients were evaluated at a mean follow-up of 81.4 months (6.8 years). In the surgical group, the recurrence of instability (dislocation or subluxation) was significantly lower compared with the nonoperative group (n = 5 [27.8%] vs 17 [89.5%], respectively; P < .0005), and the rate increased in both groups compared with 2-year results (n = 2 [10%] vs 13 [65%], respectively; P = .003). Fewer patients had another episode of a dislocation in the surgical group compared with the nonoperative group (n = 4 [22.2%] vs 15 [79.0%], respectively; P < .003). In the surgical group, all dislocations occurred after 2 years’ follow-up, while 6 patients in the nonoperative group already had dislocations at 2 years. The Walch-Duplay score (93.24 vs 76.05 points, respectively; P = .0004), WOSI score (12.12 vs 20.95 points, respectively; P = .009), and QuickDASH score (4.84 vs 16.14 points, respectively; P = .0088) were significantly better in the surgical group than in the nonoperative group. The rate of return to the same or better level of sport was 82% in the surgical group compared with 21% in the nonoperative group ( P < .0009). Additionally, 11 patients (29.7%) required primary or secondary shoulder stabilization surgery: 2 (11.1%) in the surgical group and 9 (47.4%) in the nonoperative group ( P < .04). Conclusion: Arthroscopic labral repair (Bankart repair) reduced the risk of secondary shoulder dislocations and improved functional outcomes versus nonoperative treatment at 6-year follow-up. Surgical treatment after a first episode of a shoulder dislocation could be offered as a primary treatment option in a younger population. Registration: NCT03315819 (ClinicalTrials.gov)
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".