ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2020
Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors Associated with Anchor-Number Preference Among Orthopedic Surgeons Performing Bankart Repair in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Survey.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Beach Chair Versus Lateral Decubitus Surgical Positioning for Arthroscopic Shoulder Stabilization Surgery: What Does The Evidence Say?Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2026Review
- Similar Redislocation Rates Between Knot-Tying and Knotless Suture Anchor for Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025Article
- Comparative Results After Latarjet Procedure for Shoulder Instability Management Between Primary and Revision Cases After Failed Arthroscopic Bankart Procedure: A Midterm Follow-up Study.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025Article
- Is Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair a Viable Option? A Systematic Review of Recurrent Instability following Bankart Repair.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Outcomes of Revision Arthroscopic Posterior Labral Repair and Capsulorrhaphy: A Systematic Review.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2023Review
- Revision Arthroscopic Labral Repair Using All-Suture Anchors in Patients With Subcritical Glenoid Bone Loss After Failed Bankart Repair: Clinical Outcomes at 2-Year Follow-up.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2023Article
- Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair for Anterior Shoulder Instability After a Failed Arthroscopic Soft-Tissue Repair Yields Comparable Failure Rates to Primary Bankart Repair: A Systematic Review.HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery · 2022Review
- Clinical Outcomes of Revision Arthroscopic Capsulolabral Repair for Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability With Moderate Glenoid Bone Defects: A Comparison With Primary Surgery.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2021Article
- New Trends in Shoulder Surgery from Biomechanics to the Operating Room.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although the frequency of arthroscopic revision surgery is increasing in patients with recurrent dislocation after a primary shoulder stabilization, the literature describing arthroscopic revision Bankart repair has been limited. Preferred reporting items for systematic meta-analyses guidelines were followed by utilizing PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases. Keywords included shoulder dislocation, anterior shoulder instability, revision surgery, stabilization, and arthroscopic Bankart repair. Quality assessments were performed with criteria from the methodological index for nonrandomized studies (MINORS). A total of 14 articles were included in this analysis. The mean MINORS score was 12.43. A total of 339 shoulders (337 patients) were included (281 males and 56 females). The mean follow-up period was 36.7 months. Primary surgeries were as follows: arthroscopic procedures (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.