SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Knotless versus knotted arthroscopic Bankart repairs for anterior shoulder instability: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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.
- Up-to-date concepts and procedures in shoulder instability: a comprehensive review.Clinics in shoulder and elbow · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundArthroscopic Bankart repair can be performed via a more contemporary knotless procedure or a more traditional knotted procedure. Nonetheless, comparisons between these two techniques remain controversial.
methodsFollowing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies directly comparing the knotless and knotted arthroscopic Bankart procedures were included. The primary outcomes were rates of recurrent instability and revision surgeries. Secondary outcomes encompassed number of anchors, operative time, improvements in functional scores including Rowe score and Constant-Murley score (CMS), pain level assessed by the visual analogue scale (VAS) score, range of motion (ROM), adverse events, and radiological results. Quality assessment was performed using RoB2 and MINORS tools. Meta-analysis pooled RCT data using Review Manager 5.4.1, and non-pooled outcomes from cohort studies or limited RCT data were reported separately.
resultsThis meta-analysis included nine studies with a total of 729 patients. Pooled data from three RCTs demonstrated no significant differences between the two techniques in terms of re-dislocation (P = 0.78), recurrent anterior subluxation and positive apprehension test (P = 0.78), revision surgery (P = 0.94), number of anchors used (P = 0.26), or improvements in Rowe score (P = 0.15). For outcomes not suitable for pooling, qualitative analysis of trends indicated comparable outcomes between the groups, except a slightly reduced operative time in the knotless repair group. Adverse events were infrequently reported and occurred at similar rates in both groups. Limited radiological data from one RCT showed no significant differences in MRI parameters at the 24-month follow-up.
conclusionBoth techniques demonstrate comparable clinical outcomes. The only potential advantage of the knotless technique is a possible reduction in operative time, though its clinical significance remains uncertain. Given the limitations of the evidence, these findings should be interpreted cautiously. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable. PROSPERO REGISTRATION ID: CRD42024586135.
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.