ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2026
Evaluating Return to Sport Outcomes: Arthroscopic Anatomic Glenoid Reconstruction vs. Bankart Repair.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Anterior shoulder instability with glenoid bone loss (GBL) poses a clinical challenge, especially for athletes aiming to return to sports (RTS). While arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) has demonstrated varying strengths, arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction (AAGR) has emerged as a promising alternative to address GBL. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to compare the rate and time of RTS between AAGR and ABR in patients with anterior shoulder instability. A subobjective was to compare recurrent instability rates between the groups. It was hypothesized that AAGR would result in higher RTS rates and lower redislocation rates compared to ABR. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients with anterior shoulder instability and GBL treated with either AAGR or ABR between 2016 and 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. The inclusion criteria required preoperative participation in recreational or competitive sports. Patient characteristics, sports participation levels, RTS outcomes (based on patient survey), reasons for not returning to sports, and postoperative recurrence and complications were collected. Statistical analyses involved chi-square tests for categorical variables and Results: A total of 84 patients were included in the analysis (AAGR, n = 44; ABR, n = 40). The AAGR group had 21% GBL while the ABR group had 10% GBL ( Conclusion: In patients with anterior shoulder instability, our study showed that anterior AAGR demonstrates superior patient-reported RTS rates and lower redislocation rates than ABR, with comparable recovery timelines despite the AAGR group having higher GBL. These findings suggest that bone block procedures may achieve higher RTS rates than ABR alone. This study provides valuable guidance for clinicians advising athletes on surgical options by establishing appropriate RTS expectations and demonstrating that AAGR provides suitable RTS in the presence of GBL.
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.