ArticleOrthopedic reviews2026
Arthroscopic Double-Row Repair of ALPSA Lesions: Prospective Outcomes at 2 and 5 Years Abstract.
Article in Orthopedic reviews, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Anterior labroligamentous periosteal sleeve avulsion (ALPSA) lesions represent a variant of anterior shoulder instability and are associated with higher recurrence rates after arthroscopic stabilization compared with classic Bankart lesions. Hypothesis: Arthroscopic double-row capsulolabral repair would result in favorable clinical and functional outcomes in patients with ALPSA lesions. Study Design: Case series. Level of Evidence: Level 4. Methods: A prospective case series was conducted on 50 patients with traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation and confirmed ALPSA lesions. Preoperative assessment included history, clinical examination, and functional scoring with the Instability Severity Index Score (ISIS), Constant Shoulder Score (CSS), and Rowe Score. All patients underwent arthroscopic double-row repair using a single medial anchor and three lateral anchors. A trans-subscapularis portal used to obtain an end-on trajectory for medial anchor placement. 48 Patients were followed clinically for 2 years, and remote follow-up at 5 years was conducted for 44 patients using a culturally adapted and validated translated version of the Simple Shoulder Test (SST). Results: Constant Shoulder Score increased from a preoperative mean of 59.2 to 94.92 at 2 years (P<.001). External rotation in adduction decreased initially after surgery but recovered to a mean of 52.2° by 2 years. Forty-seven patients (97.9%) resumed their previous activity level, and no redislocations occurred. At 5 years, 44 patients completed SST follow-up, with scores ranging from 9 to 12 (mean 11.36), confirming good mid-term outcomes and no recurrent dislocations. Conclusion: Arthroscopic double-row repair of ALPSA lesions resulted in good functional recovery, high return-to-activity rates, and no redislocations at both 2- and 5-year follow-up. This technique needs to be compared with single row repair of ALPSA lesion. Clinical Relevance: This study provides prospective outcome data for assessment the arthroscopic double-row repair technique as a treatment option for ALPSA lesions in patients with anterior shoulder instability. What is known about this subject: ALPSA lesions are associated with higher failure rates after arthroscopic stabilization compared with Bankart lesions, and restoration of the native capsulolabral anatomy is technically challenging. What this study adds to existing knowledge: This study provides prospective mid-term clinical outcome data following arthroscopic double-row repair for ALPSA lesions, demonstrating favorable results in a selected low-risk population.
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.