ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2024
Validating the Glenoid Track Concept Using Dynamic Arthroscopic Assessment.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2024. 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.
- Evidence-Based Risk Factors for Failure of Arthroscopic Labral Repair.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2026Review
- Is Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair a Viable Option? A Systematic Review of Recurrent Instability following Bankart Repair.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Failure after isolated Bankart repair has led surgeons to consider when to address the Hill-Sachs lesion, which is thought to be a contributor to recurrent instability. One approach utilizes the glenoid track concept to determine whether a Hill-Sachs lesion is classified as "off-track," suggesting that the addition of a remplissage procedure may aid stability. However, the accuracy and reliability of using this approach require validation using an appropriate reference. Purpose: To determine the accuracy and reliability of using the glenoid track concept against dynamic arthroscopic assessment of Hill-Sachs lesion engagement. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 49 patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair surgery for recurrent traumatic anterior shoulder instability were enrolled in this diagnostic validation study. Shoulders were classified as on-track or off-track using 3-dimensional computed tomography (3DCT) and static arthroscopic measurements. These classifications were compared with dynamic arthroscopic assessment (engagement of the Hill-Sachs lesion on the anterior glenoid rim in the 'athletic position') to determine their accuracy and reliability. Results: The 3DCT-based measurements to determine glenoid track status had a higher positive predictive value (66% vs 42%), higher specificity (47% vs 42%), and higher accuracy (65% vs 59%) compared with static arthroscopic measurements. Static arthroscopic measurements to determine glenoid track status had a higher negative predictive value (96% vs 64%) and higher sensitivity (96% vs 81%) compared with 3DCT-based measurements. Interrater reliability (Krippendorff α) was 'fair' for determining the glenoid track status using 3DCT (0.368; 95% CI, 0.217-0.519) and 'moderate' for static arthroscopic measurements (0.523; 95% CI, 0.364-0.666). Intrarater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 3, Conclusion: Determining glenoid track status using either 3DCT or static arthroscopic measurements yielded moderate accuracy and reliability. Surgeons using the glenoid track concept to aid surgical decision-making in traumatic recurrent anterior shoulder instability should utilize 3DCT or static arthroscopic measurements with caution.
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.