Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35082560›Full record

ReviewHSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery2022

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.

Ajaykumar Shanmugaraj, Seaher Sakha, Tushar Tejpal, Timothy Leroux, Jacob M Kirsch, Moin Khan

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery, 2022. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ajaykumar ShanmugarajDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Seaher SakhaDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Tushar TejpalDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Timothy LerouxDepartment of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Jacob M KirschDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, New England Baptist Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Moin KhanDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
McMaster University · CANew England Baptist Hospital · USUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe management of recurrent instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair remains challenging. Of the various treatment options, arthroscopic revision repairs are of increasing interest due to improved visualization of pathology and advancements in arthroscopic techniques and instrumentation. PURPOSE: We sought to assess the indications, techniques, outcomes, and complications for patients undergoing revision arthroscopic Bankart repair after a failed index arthroscopic soft-tissue stabilization for anterior shoulder instability.

methodsWe performed a systematic review of studies identified by a search of Medline, Embase, and PubMed. Our search range was from data inception to April 29, 2020. Outcomes include clinical outcomes and rates of complication and revision. The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) was used to assess study quality. Data are presented descriptively.

resultsTwelve studies were identified, comprising 279 patients (281 shoulders) with a mean age of 26.1 ± 3.8 years and a mean follow-up of 55.7 ± 24.3 months. Patients had improvements in postoperative outcomes (eg, pain and function). The overall complication rate was 29.5%, the most common being recurrent instability (19.9%).

conclusionWith significant improvements postoperatively and comparable recurrent instability rates, there exists a potential role in the use of revision arthroscopic Bankart repair where the glenoid bone loss is less than 20%. Clinicians should consider patient history and imaging findings to determine whether a more rigorous stabilization procedure is warranted. Large prospective cohorts with long-term follow-up and improved documentation are required to determine more accurate failure rates.

Indexed as

Bankart repairinstabilityrevisionshouldersoft tissue

Identifiers

PMID35082560
PMCPMC8753542
OpenAlexW3186099762

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.