Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36033173›Full record

ArticleArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2022

Consideration May Be Given to Lowering the Threshold for the Addition of Remplissage in Patients With Subcritical Glenoid Bone Loss Undergoing Arthroscopic Bankart Repair.

Jeffrey L Horinek, Mariano E Menendez, Jonathan J Callegari, Pablo Narbona, Alexandre Lädermann, Johannes Barth, Patrick J Denard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  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

7 authors.

Jeffrey L HorinekSouthern Oregon Orthopedics, Medford, Oregon, U.S.A.
Mariano E MenendezDepartment of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Midwest Orthopedics at Rush, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
Jonathan J CallegariSouthern Oregon Orthopedics, Medford, Oregon, U.S.A.
Pablo NarbonaDepartment of Shoulder Surgery and Arthroscopy, Sanatorio Allende, Cardoba, Argentina.
Alexandre LädermannDivision of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, La Tour Hospital, Meyrin, Switzerland.
Johannes BarthDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Clinique des Cèdres, Echirolles, France.
Patrick J DenardSouthern Oregon Orthopedics, Medford, Oregon, U.S.A.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Treatment for patients with anterior glenohumeral instability with subcritical bone loss is evolving. The purpose of this study was to compare 2-year outcomes of arthroscopic Bankart repair with and without Hill-Sachs remplissage in patients with <15% glenoid bone loss. Methods: A multicenter retrospective study was performed on a consecutive series of patients who underwent primary isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair (IBR) or arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage (REMP) by 4 shoulder specialists between 2013 and 2019. Range of motion (ROM) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected at baseline and 2 years postoperative: Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and visual analog scale for pain. Recurrence, return to sport, satisfaction, complications, and revisions also were reviewed. Results: A total of 123 patients were available, including 75 IBR and 48 REMP. Baseline demographics, activity, ROM, and PROs were similar. Mean glenoid bone loss (2.5% vs 6.1%: Conclusions: Despite slightly worse pathology, patients with subcritical bone loss who undergo REMP experience similar short-term postoperative function to isolated IBR. Recurrence, revision, and return to sport favored REMP but this study was underpowered to show statistical significance. Recurrence was common following IBR, despite subcritical glenoid bone loss and primarily on-track lesions, suggesting that REMP can be considered in on-track lesions. Level of Evidence: III, retrospective comparative study.

Identifiers

PMID36033173
PMCPMC9402416

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.