ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2025
All-Suture Anchor Deployment Configurations in Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Comparative Analysis of Clinical and Radiological Outcomes.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2025. 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
- Time-Dependent Anchor Hole Expansion May Associate with Meniscal Extrusion After Open-Wedge High Tibial Osteotomy Combined with Medial Meniscus Posterior Root Tear Repair and Meniscal Centralization.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: All-suture anchors have various configurations during deployment and different biomechanical characteristics because of their soft anchor bodies. Hypothesis/Purpose: This study aimed to analyze the clinical and radiological differences of all-suture anchors in arthroscopic Bankart repair based on their deployment configurations. It was hypothesized that each all-suture anchor would yield comparable clinical outcomes regardless of radiological differences in the pattern of glenoid bone reaction. Study Design: Cohort study, Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 141 patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair using all-suture anchors were enrolled. Patients were divided into 4 groups based on the configurations after deployment of the all-suture anchors used: (1) group A (38 patients)-1.3-mm all-suture anchor with a Results: No significant difference was observed in the preoperative demographic data of the 4 groups. The all-suture anchor tunnel's mean diameter in group A (3.9 ± 0.4 mm) was significantly larger than that of groups B (3.3 ± 0.3 mm), C (3.7 ± 0.4 mm), and D (2 ± 0.3 mm; Conclusions: All-suture anchors with various deployment configurations produced different tunnel diameters and lengths. In addition, the diameter of the tunnel was more pronounced at the inferior region of the anterior glenoid compared with the superior region. Despite this, the deployment configurations and radiological characteristics of the all-suture anchors did not affect the clinical outcomes or occurrence of postoperative complications after 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.