Trial reportBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Arthroscopic Bankart repair using trans-glenoid double-loaded grand knots versus double-loaded suture anchors; is there a difference? a randomized controlled study.
Trial report in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06394609 (Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Using Double Loaded Grand Knot Technique Versus Double Loaded Knotted Suture Anchor; Comparative Study), which is not on this 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.
Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Using Double Loaded Grand Knot Technique Versus Double Loaded Knotted Suture Anchor; Comparative Study
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnatomical repair of Bankart lesions and restoring the tension of the antero-inferior capsulo-labral complex is the optimum method of surgical treatment with a variety of fixation methods including suture anchors and trans-glenoid sutures. Grand knot technique is a modification of the trans-glenoid sutures technique that can be an alternative to double-loaded suture anchors with a lower cost. We aimed to compare the outcomes and complications of both techniques.
methodsThis is a randomized controlled study that was conducted on 200 patients with recurrent anterior glenohumeral dislocation, of whom 170 patients completed at least a three-year follow-up period. Arthroscopic Bankart repair using two double-loaded knotted suture anchors was performed in 78 cases (Group A) while repair was done using two trans-glenoid grand knots in other 92 cases (Group B). Patients were evaluated in terms of range of motion, functional scores (Constant, Rowe, and ASES), and complication rate.
resultsThe mean operative time was significantly longer in Group B (87.7 ± 24) minutes compared to Group A (61.2 ± 28.1) minutes (P = 0.002). No statistically significant difference was found between both groups regarding postoperative external rotation range of adducted arm, functional scores, and rate of recurrence. Only forward flexion and external rotation of abducted arm were significantly better in Group A (P = 0.005 and < 0.001 respectively).
conclusionTrans-glenoid double-loaded grand knot technique is an alternative surgical option for the treatment of Bankart lesions with comparable results to double-loaded anchors regarding the functional outcomes and failure rates. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION (RETROSPECTIVELY REGISTERED): Registration number: NCT06394609 28-4-2024.
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.