ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2024
Comparison between arthroscopic Bankart repair versus arthroscopic Bankart/SLAP lesion repair in limited-contact athletes with type V SLAP lesion. A prospective cohort study.
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare the functional outcomes, recurrence rate, range of motion (ROM) and return to sports activities between arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) versus arthroscopic Bankart/SLAP repair (ABR/S) in limited contact-athletes with a type V SLAP lesion in the scenario of recurrent anterior shoulder instability (RASI). Our hypothesis was that there is no difference between the two treatments.
methodsTwo groups of 45 limited-contact athletes with type V SLAP lesion were created. Group 1 underwent an arthroscopic Bankart repair, while group 2 had an arthroscopic Bankart/SLAP repair. The minimum follow-up period was 2 years. The WOSI and ASES scores were used to assess primary functional outcomes. Recurrence rate, ROM and return to sport were also evaluated.
resultsSignificant differences were reported in the WOSI and ASES scores pre- and post-operatively in each group. There were no significant differences between the two groups (P = 0.78 and 0.43). We reported 4 recurrences (8.8 %) in group 1 and 5 (11.1 %) in group 2, with no difference between them (P = 0.62). There were no significant differences between the range of motion of each of the groups as well as between them. More than 90% of the athletes in both groups returned to their previous sporting activities.
conclusionsLimited-contact athletes with RASI who have a type V SLAP lesion as their primary diagnosis can be treated using either ABR or ABR/S with equal efficacy. Both treatment alternatives preserve athlete's function, stability, ROM and return to sport.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39138668What 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.