SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2023
No difference in biomechanical properties of simple, horizontal mattress, and double row repair in Bankart repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of biomechanical studies.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Using the Labral Bridge Technique Reveals Excellent Outcomes at a Minimum Follow-up of 2 Years: A Retrospective Case Series.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArthroscopic Bankart repair is the most common procedure in patients with anterior shoulder instability. Various repair techniques using suture anchors have been used to improve the strength of fixation and surgical outcomes in arthroscopic Bankart surgery. However, evidence regarding which method is superior is lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis study was designed to compare the biomechanical results of simple versus horizontal mattress versus double-row mattress for Bankart repair.
methodsA systematic search of the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify comparative biomechanical studies comparing the simple, horizontal mattress, and double-row techniques commonly used in Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability. Biomechanical results included the ultimate load to failure, stiffness, cyclic displacement, and mode of failure after the ultimate load. The methodological quality was assessed based on the Quality Appraisal for Cadaveric Studies (QUACS) scale for biomechanical studies.
resultsSix biomechanical studies comprising 125 human cadavers were included in this systematic review. In biomechanical studies comparing simple and horizontal mattress repair and biomechanical studies comparing simple and double-row repair, there were no significant differences in the ultimate load to failure, stiffness, or cyclic displacement between the repair methods. The median QUACS scale was 11.5 with a range from 10 to 12, indicating a low risk of bias.
conclusionThere was no biomechanically significant difference between the simple, horizontal mattress, and double-row methods in Bankart repair. Clinical evidence such as prospective randomized controlled trials should be conducted to evaluate clinical outcomes according to the various repair methods. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review, Therapeutic 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.