ReviewArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2021
Excellent Functional Outcomes and Low Complication Rates Following Knotless Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Systematic Review of Clinical and Biomechanical Studies.
Review in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Knotless versus knotted arthroscopic Bankart repairs for anterior shoulder instability: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Pooled it
- Knotless PEEK and double-loaded biodegradable suture anchors ensure comparable clinical outcomes in the arthroscopic treatment of traumatic anterior shoulder instability: a prospective randomized study.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2022Trial
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo provide a comprehensive review of the current clinical and biomechanical evidence for the use of knotless suture anchors during arthroscopic Bankart repair.
methodsA comprehensive search of 5 electronic databases from inception to July 2020 was performed for clinical and biomechanical studies in English evaluating outcomes following arthroscopic Bankart repair using knotless suture anchors. Two independent reviewers assessed articles for inclusion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORs) criteria. Clinical outcomes of interest and key findings from biomechanical studies were summarized.
resultsTen clinical studies (430 knotless repairs), including 4 cohort studies directly comparing knotless (N = 117) to knot-tying repairs (N = 192), were deemed eligible. Four biomechanical studies were also identified. Heterogeneity and the lack of randomized studies precluded data pooling and quantitative meta-analysis. Rates of redislocation ranged from 2.2% to 14.7% and 1.5% to 23.8% for knot-tying and knotless repair, respectively. Both knot-tying and knotless repair demonstrated excellent postoperative functional outcome, as assessed by visual analog scale, Constant-Murley, Rowe, and QuickDASH scores, with 80% to 94% of patients returning to sports participation. Biomechanical studies showed similar stiffness and load to failure between knot-tying and knotless repairs, with the most common mode of failure being retear at the suture-soft tissue interface.
conclusionsCurrent level II to IV clinical and biomechanical evidence supports knotless arthroscopic Bankart repair as an effective procedure with excellent functional outcomes and low rates of complication and reoperation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of level II to IV studies.
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.