ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2023
Clinical Outcomes of Adolescents With Anterior Shoulder Instability and Glenolabral Articular Disruption Lesions Compared With Isolated Bankart Lesions.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Osteopathic approach to injuries of the overhead thrower's shoulder.Journal of osteopathic medicine · 2025Review
- Glenolabral Articular Disruption (GLAD) Is Not Associated with Worse Outcomes or Higher Instability Recurrence after Arthroscopic Bankart Repair-A Matched-Pair Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Glenolabral articular disruption (GLAD) lesions may occur in adolescents with anterior shoulder instability, resulting in articular cartilage loss and reduced functional glenoid surface area. Purpose/Hypothesis: To compare failure rates and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between adolescents with versus without GLAD lesions who were treated for anterior shoulder instability with arthroscopic stabilization. It was hypothesized that the comparison would yield no significant differences. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients aged ≤18 years who were treated for anterior shoulder instability with arthroscopic stabilization between 2010 and 2021 were retrospectively identified. Those patients with a GLAD lesion identified at the time of surgery were compared with patients with >2 years of retrospective follow-up who were matched to the no-GLAD cohort according to pathology and management. Demographic and patient characteristics including recurrent instability, complications, and reoperations were recorded. All patients in the GLAD cohort were contacted to obtain PRO data, including the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation; the shortened version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire; and the Pediatric Adolescent Shoulder Survey. Patients were also asked about recurrent instability and additional shoulder problems. Results: Of 35 included patients (mean age, 15.4 ± 1.6 years; 80% male), 15 patients (43%) with GLAD lesions and 26 patients without GLAD lesions were identified. Both cohorts had similar patient characteristics, number of anchors, and anchor constructs; the mean follow-up period was significantly different (GLAD vs no-GLAD, 6.9 ± 3.3 vs 3.4 ± 1.2 years, respectively; Conclusion: Adolescent patients with and without GLAD lesions treated arthroscopically for anterior shoulder instability had similar PROs and failure rates at intermediate duration of follow-up. GLAD lesions may be managed in a similar surgical manner as isolated Bankart tears in teenagers, with expectations of similar 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.