Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34017877›Full record

ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2021

Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Versus Arthroscopic Latarjet for Failed Primary Arthroscopic Stabilization With Subcritical Bone Loss.

Emilio Calvo, Gonzalo Luengo, Diana Morcillo, Antonio M Foruria, María Valencia

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Emilio CalvoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, IIS Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Universidad Autónoma, Madrid, Spain.
Gonzalo LuengoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, IIS Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Universidad Autónoma, Madrid, Spain.
Diana MorcilloDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, IIS Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Universidad Autónoma, Madrid, Spain.
Antonio M ForuriaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, IIS Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Universidad Autónoma, Madrid, Spain.
María ValenciaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, IIS Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Universidad Autónoma, Madrid, Spain.
Hospital Universitario Fundación Jiménez Díaz · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLimited evidence is available regarding the recommended technique of revision surgery for recurrent shoulder instability. Only 1 previous study has compared the results of soft tissue repair and the Latarjet technique in patients with persistent shoulder instability after primary surgical stabilization. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate the results of revision surgery in patients with previous surgical stabilization failure and subcritical glenoid bone defects, comparing repeated Bankart repair versus arthroscopic Latarjet technique. The hypothesis was that Latarjet would be superior to soft tissue procedures in terms of objective and subjective functional scores, recurrence rates, and range of movement. STUDY

designCohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

methodsIncluded were 45 patients (mean age, 29.1 ± 8.9 years) with subcritical bone loss (<15% of articular surface) who had undergone revision anterior shoulder instability repair after failed Bankart repair. Of these, 17 patients had arthroscopic Bankart repair and 28 had arthroscopic Latarjet surgery. Patients were evaluated at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively with the Rowe score, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, and Subjective Shoulder Value. Subluxation or dislocation episodes were considered failures.

resultsNo statistically significant differences were found between groups in age, sex, sporting activity, preoperative Rowe score, or the presence of hyperlaxity or bony lesions. At revision arthroscopy, 20 shoulders showed a persistent Bankart lesion, 13 a medially healed labrum, and 6 a bony Bankart. In 6 patients, no abnormalities were present that could explain postoperative recurrence. In the Bankart repair group, 7 patients underwent isolated Bankart procedures; in the remaining 10 cases, a capsular shift was added. No significant differences were found between the Bankart and Latarjet groups in outcome scores, recurrence rate (11.8% vs 17.9%, respectively), or postoperative athletic activity level. The mean loss of passive external rotation at 0° and 90° of abduction was similar between groups.

conclusionArthroscopic Latarjet did not lead to superior results compared with repeated Bankart repair in patients with subcritical glenoid bone loss and recurrent anterior shoulder instability after Bankart repair.

Indexed as

anteriorarthroscopyBankartLatarjetrecurrencerevisionshoulder instability

Identifiers

PMID34017877
PMCPMC8114265
OpenAlexW3157656668

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.