Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Provides Satisfactory Outcomes for Both Central-Track and Peripheral-Track Lesions in Noncontact Athletes With a Minimum 8-Year Follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In recent years, on-track lesions have been subclassified as peripheral- and central-track lesions based on the Hill-Sachs lesion occupancy within the glenoid track. Studies have stated that arthroscopic Bankart repair can be performed in noncontact athletes with on-track lesions, regardless of whether they are classified as peripheral or central track. However, this assumption currently remains theoretical and requires confirmation or refutation through clinical follow-up studies. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of peripheral- and central-track lesions on long-term clinical outcomes in a homogeneous cohort of noncontact athletes undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair. It was hypothesized that arthroscopic Bankart repair provides satisfactory long-term outcomes for both central-track and peripheral-track lesions in noncontact athletes. Study Design: Retrospective cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair for shoulder instability from 2013 to 2017 were retrospectively evaluated. Patients with a glenoid defect <25%, on-track lesions, and participation in noncontact sports were included in the study. Patients were classified as having peripheral-track lesions (lesion in the medial one-fourth of the glenoid track) and central-track lesions (lesion in the lateral three-fourths of the glenoid track). The 2 groups were compared in terms of demographic characteristics, redislocation rates, return to sports, and patient-reported outcome measures, including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, and visual analog scale scoring systems. Results: The study included 101 patients: 62 with central-track lesions (mean ± SD; age, 26.6 ± 8.7 years; follow-up, 9.1 ± 1.2 years) and 39 with peripheral-track lesions (mean ± SD; age, 25.9 ± 6.9 years; follow-up, 8.8 ± 1.2 years). At the final follow-up, no significant differences were observed between the 2 groups for Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index ( P = .162), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons ( P = .524), or visual analog scale ( P = .754) scoring systems. Additionally, redislocation rates and return-to-sport proportions were similar between both groups, with rates of 13% and 15% for redislocation ( P = .471) and 82% and 80% for return to sports ( P = .461), respectively. Conclusion: In patients with shoulder instability who participate in noncontact sports and have on-track lesions, arthroscopic Bankart repair provides satisfactory long-term clinical outcomes regardless of whether the lesion is classified as peripheral track or central track.
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 | 0.000 | 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".