ArticleIndian journal of orthopaedics2021
Is Revision Bankart Repair with Remplissage a Viable Option for Failed Bankart Repair in Non-contact Sports Person Aiming to Return to Sports?
Article in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Latarjet procedure for failed Bankart repair provides better stability and return to sports, but worse postoperative pain and external rotation limitations with more complications, compared to revision Bankart repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023Pooled it
- Objective clinical tests to inform decision-making prior to return to sport in athletes with shoulder instability: A scoping review.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Article
- Is Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair a Viable Option? A Systematic Review of Recurrent Instability following Bankart Repair.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Arthroscopic Remplissage Using Knotless, All-Suture Anchors.Arthroscopy techniques · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeFailure of a well-executed Bankart repair in non-contact athletes is difficult to predict and its management is a lesser investigated area with uncertain outcome in terms of return to sports (RTS). This study analyses effectiveness of revision Bankart repair with remplissage for failed Bankart repair in non-contact athletes, focusing on time and level of RTS. MATERIALS AND
methodsFifty-five consecutive non-contact athletes with evidence of instability after primary arthroscopic Bankart repair having glenoid loss < 25% and off-track Hill-Sachs lesion were included in the study according to algorithm mentioned. All cases underwent revision arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage and followed-up for 24 months. Rowe, UCLA, WOSI and Quick-DASH scores were recorded preoperative and at 24 months. RTS was allowed after unilateral seated shot-put test.
resultsOut of 55 cases, 6 were excluded because of poor tissue quality, 7 were lost to follow-up. Forty-two cases with a mean age of 28.2 ± 5.2 years were included. Mean duration between primary surgery and failure was 7.3 ± 1.4 months with a mean 1.9 redislocations. The mean Rowe, WOSI, UCLA, Quick-DASH scores improved from 37 to 89, 39.3 to 83.7%, 18.4 to 30.5, 45.3 to 18.7 at 24 months. Thirty-five cases could RTS in a mean time 15.4 ± 1.4 months. Out of seven cases who could not RTS, four had instability, one had pain and two voluntarily quit sports.
conclusionRevision Bankart repair with remplissage is a feasible option for failed primary Bankart repair in non-contact athletes who have glenoid bone loss < 25% with off-track Hill-Sachs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.
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.