ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2023
Anatomic risk factors for arthroscopic Bankart repair failure: A case-control study comparing failure and non-failure groups in an Asian population.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics, 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evidence-Based Risk Factors for Failure of Arthroscopic Labral Repair.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2026Review
- Double-Row Bony Bankart Bridge for Large Bony Bankart Lesions: Technical Considerations.Arthroscopy techniques · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Post-arthroscopic Bankart repair failure/re-dislocation rates are influenced by several risk factors, including anatomic defects. There is limited evidence on the role of anatomic defects, especially for Hill-Sachs size in on-track lesions. This study aimed to assess glenoid bone loss, Hill-Sachs lesion and labral tear size and evaluate their contribution to post-operative instability after a primary repair. Material and methods: Across 169 patients with on-track Bankart lesions who underwent primary arthroscopic Bankart repair from 2010 to 2015, this study matched 14 failure with 14 non-failure cases based on age/gender. Patient demographics, pre-operative radiological parameters (including size of glenoid bone loss and Hill-Sachs lesion) and labral tear size were compared between the failure and non-failure groups. Result: All patients were male with a mean age of 21.01 ± 4.97. Significantly greater glenoid bone loss (p = 0.024) and labral tear size (p = 0.039) were found in the failure group. However, there was no significant difference in mean volume of Hill-Sachs lesion between the two groups (p = 0.739). Conclusion: Extensive glenoid bone loss and labral tears are risk factors for post-arthroscopic Bankart failure. However, the size of Hill-Sachs lesion is not a risk factor for failure, in a specific group of on-track Hill-Sachs lesions. Level of evidence: Retrospective Study, 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.