Long-term Outcomes of a Contemporary Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Technique in Patients With Traumatic Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Minimum 10-Year Follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The long-term results of arthroscopic Bankart repair are poorly reported in the literature and show recurrence rates as high as 37%. However, this high failure rate is based on historical studies of patients with critical defects stabilized using older techniques. PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of arthroscopic Bankart repair using a contemporary technique with a minimum of 3 suture anchors in patients with traumatic anterior instability and to assess possible risk factors for recurrent instability. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A total of 181 patients (182 shoulders), who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair because of traumatic anterior instability between 2005 and 2014, were included in this study and evaluated at a minimum follow-up of 10 years. Exclusion criteria were previous shoulder surgery, additional stabilization procedures, use of <3 anchors, multidirectional instability, and indications for bony reconstruction (critical bony defects: glenoid defect >20%, off-track Hill-Sachs lesion). The primary outcome was recurrent instability. Secondary outcomes were the Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), visual analog scale (VAS), Constant score, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), and Rowe score as well as sports activity level and return to sports. Risk factors for recurrent instability were analyzed. RESULTS: < .001) compared with patients with recurrence without revision surgery. A shorter interval between the first dislocation and surgery was associated with better shoulder outcomes, despite a consistent recurrence rate. Of all patients, 97.6% returned to sports, with 69.6% returning to 90% to 100% of their preoperative sports activity. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic Bankart repair resulted in a relatively high recurrence rate, despite the use of a contemporary technique, particularly in patients with >1 dislocation before surgery. While younger age and a higher number of preoperative dislocations were potential risk factors for recurrence, a shorter interval between the first dislocation and surgery was associated with improved clinical outcomes. Therefore, patients with a high risk of redislocations should be considered for early soft tissue stabilization, while additional procedures such as remplissage should be performed for those with nonmodifiable high-risk factors.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".