Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42683390›Full record

ReviewActa ortopedica brasileira2026

EVIDENCE-BASED REVIEWS & RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE BRAZILIAN SOCIETY OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY: LABRAL REPAIR FOR ANTERIOR SHOULDER INSTABILITY - MORE THAN TWO ANCHORS VERSUS UP TO TWO ANCHORS.

Paulo Henrique Schmidt Lara, Paulo Santoro Belangero, Márcio Schiefer, Leonardo Zanesco, Marcos Rassi Fernandes, Joel Murachovsky, João Felipe de Medeiros, Eduardo Angeli Malavolta

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Acta ortopedica brasileira, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Paulo Henrique Schmidt LaraEscola Paulista de Medicina, UNIFESP, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1623-2071
Paulo Santoro BelangeroEscola Paulista de Medicina, UNIFESP, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4441-4742
Márcio SchieferInstituto Nacional de Traumatologia e Ortopedia Jamil Haddad (INTO), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2785-8261
Leonardo ZanescoUniversidade de Sao Paulo, Faculdade de Medicina, Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3554-7298
Marcos Rassi FernandesUniversidade Federal de Goiás, Faculdade de Medicina, Goiânia, GO, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8078-528X
Joel MurachovskyFaculdade de Medicina do ABC, Santo André, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1812-8566
João Felipe de MedeirosUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, RN, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4745-4566
Eduardo Angeli MalavoltaUniversidade de Sao Paulo, Faculdade de Medicina, Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1956-6445

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Anterior shoulder instability is a common condition that mainly affects young adults. It is most often traumatic and is frequently associated with a Bankart lesion, characterized by detachment of the anteroinferior glenoid labrum. When conservative treatment fails, surgical repair is usually indicated. Biomechanical studies suggest that a greater number of anchors may increase the contact area and provide greater stability between the labrum and the glenoid, promoting a more stable reconstruction of the capsulolabral complex. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and the Virtual Health Library (VHL) up to March 2026 to evaluate whether the use of more than two anchors is more effective than the use of up to two anchors for the arthroscopic treatment of anterior shoulder instability in adults. The certainty of the evidence was assessed with the GRADE approach. Results: One randomized controlled trial and two cohort studies were included. For function and complications, there was no evidence showing that the use of three or more anchors was more effective than the use of two anchors. For recurrence, there was evidence, although the certainty of the evidence was very low, that the use of three or more anchors was more effective than the use of up to two anchors. Conclusion: The surgeon should individually assess patient- and disease-related characteristics to make the best treatment decision. Regarding recurrence, the SBCOC Consensus Project suggests a preference for three or more anchors, given a trend toward a lower recurrence rate.

Indexed as

ArthroscopyBankart LesionsJoint InstabilityShoulder DislocationSuture Anchors

Identifiers

PMID42683390
PMCPMC13532877

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.