ArticleClinics in orthopedic surgery2025
Anterior Shoulder Instability with Epilepsy: Bankart Repair Versus Latarjet Procedure.
Article in Clinics in orthopedic surgery, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Backgroud: Anterior dislocation in epilepsy patients is relatively severe, difficult to treat, and prone to recurrence. The purpose of this study was to compare the results of arthroscopic Bankart repair and the open Latarjet procedure in epilepsy patients who had anterior shoulder instability and to compare the results of the open Latarjet procedure in epilepsy and non-epileptic groups. Methods: A total of 57 shoulders (34 dominant) in 55 patients (18-50 years, 45 men and 10 women) with anterior glenohumeral instability were included in the study and the average follow-up was 24 months. Out of 21 epilepsy patients (23 shoulders), 11 were treated with the open Latarjet procedure and 12 with arthroscopic Bankart repair. Additionally, comparisons were made between the 34 non-epileptic patients who underwent the open Latarjet procedure and the epilepsy patients who underwent the same procedure. Results: In the epilepsy group, all 12 patients who underwent Bankart repair had on-track lesions, and all 11 patients who underwent the Latarjet procedure had off-track lesions. In the non-epilepsy group, all cases were off-track lesions. In the epilepsy group, there was no significant difference in the postoperative clinical outcome and recurrence rate between the Bankart repair and Latarjet procedure groups. In the Latarjet group, postoperative re-dislocation rate in the non-epilepsy patients was 14% (5/34 cases), compared to 45% (5/11 cases) in the epilepsy patients, 4 of which 4 occurred during seizures. It was 41% in the Bankart repair group for on-track lesions, which was similar to the recurrence rate after the Latarjet for off-track lesions in the epilepsy group. Conclusions: After the Latarjet procedure, the functional outcomes in the epilepsy group were similar to those in the non-epilepsy group, except for the higher re-dislocation rate. With either of the surgical procedures, the re-dislocation rate secondary to seizures was very high. Despite the presence of on-track lesions, the Latarjet procedure would be more preferrable for anterior stabilization in epilepsy patients, in view of the high recurrence rate with arthroscopic Bankart repair.
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.