ReviewJournal of orthopaedics2025
Clinical outcomes of arthroscopic Bankart repair versus Latarjet repair for shoulder instability: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of orthopaedics, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Determining the optimal surgical approach for recurrent anterior shoulder instability remains contentious, often guided more by clinician familiarity than comparative data. This meta-analysis assessed outcomes of arthroscopic Bankart repair versus the Latarjet procedure. A thorough search of CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Scopus (up to June 2022) was performed. For continuous outcomes such as operative time and Rowe scores, mean differences (MDs) were calculated, while categorical variables like recurrence and complications were summarized as risk ratios (RRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). From five eligible cohort studies involving 3145 patients, Bankart repair was associated with elevated redislocation (RR = 3.74, CI: 1.94-7.22) and recurrence risks (RR = 3.09, CI: 1.96-4.87). Conversely, it had a lower infection rate (RR = 0.14, CI: 0.05-0.42) and yielded reduced Rowe scores (MD = -7.94, CI: -13.00 to -2.87). Revision and hematoma incidence showed no meaningful differences. These findings suggest that while Latarjet offers improved stability and function, Bankart repair is linked to fewer infections. Both methods were similar in terms of revision and hematoma outcomes.
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.