Long-term outcomes of arthroscopic Bankart repair: a 10-year follow-up study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) is the gold standard for anterior shoulder dislocation, with many studies demonstrating favorable short-term outcomes. However, few reports focus on the long-term outcomes, partly due to a challenge of following up younger patients. This study aims to evaluate the long-term outcomes of ABR. Methods: This study included 32 shoulders (19 males, 13 females; mean age at surgery: 31 years) out of 55 shoulders that underwent ABR at our institution between 2011 and 2019. Inclusion criteria required a minimum follow-up period of 5 years, and data were collected through telephone surveys or direct examinations. The survey assessed recurrent dislocation or subluxation, shoulder pain, apprehension, return to sports (complete, partial, or inability), and revision surgery. Direct examinations included physical assessments and plain x-rays. The Rowe score and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score were assessed. Adjunct data on surgical procedures and intra-articular lesions were also reviewed. Results: < .05), and no revision surgeries were performed. Mild to moderate osteoarthritis on X-rays were found in 2 shoulders. Conclusion: The average 10-year postoperative recurrence rate was 28%, consistent with the previous systematic reviews. While the recurrence rates increased over time, patient satisfaction remained high, and no revision surgeries were required. These findings demonstrate the long-term reliability of ABR for anterior shoulder instability.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".