ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2023
Comparison of arthroscopic primary and revision Bankart repair for capsulolabral restoration: a matched-pair analysis.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Is Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair a Viable Option? A Systematic Review of Recurrent Instability following Bankart Repair.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Arthroscopic posterior capsulolabral repair grants adequate outcomes in shoulders with posterior instability without glenoid cartilage lesions.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThere have been no previous studies comparing serial radiologic results between primary and revision Bankart repair despite the significance of capsulolabral height and slope restoration. The purpose of this study was (1) to compare serially the height and slope of the repaired labrum in the early postoperative period among primary and revision Bankart repair groups, and (2) to compare clinical outcomes between the two groups. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study included each 24 patients who underwent arthroscopic primary Bankart repair (Group A) and revision Bankart repair (Group B) matched by age, sex, and glenoid defect ratio. Postoperative serial radiologic assessment of the repaired labral height and slope was proceeded using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomographic arthrography (CTA) at 3 weeks and 6 months.
resultsThere were no significant differences in labral height and slope at 3 weeks and 6 months postoperatively in Group A. However, significant reductions in labral height and slope were evident between 3 weeks and 6 months postoperatively in Group B (P < 0.05). Group A yielded superior results to Group B with respect to labral height and slope at each time point (P < 0.05) in between-group analyses. The clinical outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups except for the patients' return to their premorbid sports activity level (P = 0.024).
conclusionsThe height and slope of the repaired capsulolabral structures in the early postoperative period after arthroscopic revision Bankart repair group were significantly lower than those of the primary Bankart repair group. Also the reduction of labral height and slope was significant in the revision Bankart repair group over time. Nonetheless, clinical outcomes did not differ significantly except return to premorbid sports activity level at final follow-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36282315What 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.