ArticleCureus2023
Clinical Results of Knot-tying Versus Knotless Suture Anchors in Arthroscopic Anteroinferior Labral Repair.
Article in Cureus, 2023. 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.
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Knotless versus knotted arthroscopic Bankart repairs for anterior shoulder instability: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Pooled it
- Similar Redislocation Rates Between Knot-Tying and Knotless Suture Anchor for Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Arthroscopic repair of glenohumeral instability is becoming an increasingly common procedure. These repairs can be undertaken using knot-tying and knotless suture anchors; there is currently no clear consensus in the literature about what type of repair is most cost-effective and provides superior outcomes. The purpose of this study is to examine postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing arthroscopic anteroinferior labral repair (AALR) with either knot-tying or knotless anchors. Methods A single institution retrospective observational cohort study of 122 patients undergoing AALR from January 2014 to June 2021 was conducted. Univariate statistics were used to assess differences in demographics, operative characteristics, and postoperative outcomes between repair types; multivariate analysis was used to evaluate risk factors for recurrent instability and reoperation. Results Patients undergoing AALR with knotless anchors had a shorter case duration than those with knot-tying anchors (112.64 vs. 89.86 minutes, p<0.001). There were no significant differences between groups in the size of labral tear, presence of a glenoid bone defect, or Hill-Sachs lesion. After controlling for age, BMI, sex, glenoid bone defect, number of preoperative dislocations, and fixation type, only age (OR=0.896, p=0.010) and female sex (OR=5.341, p=0.008) were independent risk factors for recurrent instability and no factors were independent predictors of reoperation. Conclusion Patients undergoing AALR experienced similar rates of reoperation and recurrent instability regardless of whether a knot-tying or knotless repair was performed. The use of knotless suture anchors may improve cost-effectiveness due to decreased surgical time without diminishing postoperative outcomes.
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.