No Clear Difference in Clinical Outcomes Between Knotted and Knotless Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Systematic Review

To analyze whether the arthroscopic Bankart repair using a knotless suture anchor has a better functional outcome than the conventional knot-tying Bankart repair. A comprehensive literature search was done in the PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane databases in May 2023. Studies comparing the clini...

Celý popis

Uložené v:
Podrobná bibliografia
Vydané v:Arthroscopy Ročník 41; číslo 5; s. 1637
Hlavní autori: Jain, Gunjar, Datt, Rameshwar, Krishna, Anant, Patro, Bishnu Prasad, Morankar, Rahul
Médium: Journal Article
Jazyk:English
Vydavateľské údaje: United States 01.05.2025
Predmet:
ISSN:1526-3231, 1526-3231
On-line prístup:Zistit podrobnosti o prístupe
Tagy: Pridať tag
Žiadne tagy, Buďte prvý, kto otaguje tento záznam!
Abstract To analyze whether the arthroscopic Bankart repair using a knotless suture anchor has a better functional outcome than the conventional knot-tying Bankart repair. A comprehensive literature search was done in the PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane databases in May 2023. Studies comparing the clinical outcome of Bankart repair using knotless and knot-tying techniques were included in the study. In vitro, animal, and Level IV and V studies were excluded. The risk of bias in randomized controlled trials was calculated according to the RoB 2 tool, and for nonrandomized studies, Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria were used. Statistical analysis was done using RevMan software. A total of 9 studies, including 2 randomized controlled trials and 7 nonrandomized comparative studies involving 720 patients, were included in the systematic review. The ROWE score ranged from 81.7 to 94.3 in the knot-tying group and 86 to 96.3 in the knotless group. Visual Analog Scale scores at the final follow-up ranged from 0.1 to 1.7 in the knot-tying group and 0.7 to 2.5 in the knotless group. The rate of redislocation, subluxation, and revision surgery in the knot-tying group ranged from 0% to 14.7%, 16.7% to 29.7%, and 1.6% to 17.6%, respectively, whereas that in the knotless group ranged from 2.4% to 23.8%, 7.4% to 22.2%, and 2.4% to 19%, respectively. The mean external rotation was 54° to 65° in the knot-tying group and 61° to 99° in the knotless group. The mean forward-flexion was 164 to 172 in the knot-tying group and 165 to 174 in the knotless group. Our subjective synthesis does not reveal any difference in the outcome between the 2 groups. The available literature does not demonstrate a clear difference in functional outcomes, residual pain, and rate of complications as redislocation, subluxation, and revision surgery between Bankart repairs performed with knotted and knotless anchors. Level III, systematic review of Level I to III studies.
AbstractList To analyze whether the arthroscopic Bankart repair using a knotless suture anchor has a better functional outcome than the conventional knot-tying Bankart repair.PURPOSETo analyze whether the arthroscopic Bankart repair using a knotless suture anchor has a better functional outcome than the conventional knot-tying Bankart repair.A comprehensive literature search was done in the PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane databases in May 2023. Studies comparing the clinical outcome of Bankart repair using knotless and knot-tying techniques were included in the study. In vitro, animal, and Level IV and V studies were excluded. The risk of bias in randomized controlled trials was calculated according to the RoB 2 tool, and for nonrandomized studies, Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria were used. Statistical analysis was done using RevMan software.METHODSA comprehensive literature search was done in the PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane databases in May 2023. Studies comparing the clinical outcome of Bankart repair using knotless and knot-tying techniques were included in the study. In vitro, animal, and Level IV and V studies were excluded. The risk of bias in randomized controlled trials was calculated according to the RoB 2 tool, and for nonrandomized studies, Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria were used. Statistical analysis was done using RevMan software.A total of 9 studies, including 2 randomized controlled trials and 7 nonrandomized comparative studies involving 720 patients, were included in the systematic review. The ROWE score ranged from 81.7 to 94.3 in the knot-tying group and 86 to 96.3 in the knotless group. Visual Analog Scale scores at the final follow-up ranged from 0.1 to 1.7 in the knot-tying group and 0.7 to 2.5 in the knotless group. The rate of redislocation, subluxation, and revision surgery in the knot-tying group ranged from 0% to 14.7%, 16.7% to 29.7%, and 1.6% to 17.6%, respectively, whereas that in the knotless group ranged from 2.4% to 23.8%, 7.4% to 22.2%, and 2.4% to 19%, respectively. The mean external rotation was 54° to 65° in the knot-tying group and 61° to 99° in the knotless group. The mean forward-flexion was 164 to 172 in the knot-tying group and 165 to 174 in the knotless group. Our subjective synthesis does not reveal any difference in the outcome between the 2 groups.RESULTSA total of 9 studies, including 2 randomized controlled trials and 7 nonrandomized comparative studies involving 720 patients, were included in the systematic review. The ROWE score ranged from 81.7 to 94.3 in the knot-tying group and 86 to 96.3 in the knotless group. Visual Analog Scale scores at the final follow-up ranged from 0.1 to 1.7 in the knot-tying group and 0.7 to 2.5 in the knotless group. The rate of redislocation, subluxation, and revision surgery in the knot-tying group ranged from 0% to 14.7%, 16.7% to 29.7%, and 1.6% to 17.6%, respectively, whereas that in the knotless group ranged from 2.4% to 23.8%, 7.4% to 22.2%, and 2.4% to 19%, respectively. The mean external rotation was 54° to 65° in the knot-tying group and 61° to 99° in the knotless group. The mean forward-flexion was 164 to 172 in the knot-tying group and 165 to 174 in the knotless group. Our subjective synthesis does not reveal any difference in the outcome between the 2 groups.The available literature does not demonstrate a clear difference in functional outcomes, residual pain, and rate of complications as redislocation, subluxation, and revision surgery between Bankart repairs performed with knotted and knotless anchors.CONCLUSIONSThe available literature does not demonstrate a clear difference in functional outcomes, residual pain, and rate of complications as redislocation, subluxation, and revision surgery between Bankart repairs performed with knotted and knotless anchors.Level III, systematic review of Level I to III studies.LEVEL OF EVIDENCELevel III, systematic review of Level I to III studies.
To analyze whether the arthroscopic Bankart repair using a knotless suture anchor has a better functional outcome than the conventional knot-tying Bankart repair. A comprehensive literature search was done in the PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane databases in May 2023. Studies comparing the clinical outcome of Bankart repair using knotless and knot-tying techniques were included in the study. In vitro, animal, and Level IV and V studies were excluded. The risk of bias in randomized controlled trials was calculated according to the RoB 2 tool, and for nonrandomized studies, Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria were used. Statistical analysis was done using RevMan software. A total of 9 studies, including 2 randomized controlled trials and 7 nonrandomized comparative studies involving 720 patients, were included in the systematic review. The ROWE score ranged from 81.7 to 94.3 in the knot-tying group and 86 to 96.3 in the knotless group. Visual Analog Scale scores at the final follow-up ranged from 0.1 to 1.7 in the knot-tying group and 0.7 to 2.5 in the knotless group. The rate of redislocation, subluxation, and revision surgery in the knot-tying group ranged from 0% to 14.7%, 16.7% to 29.7%, and 1.6% to 17.6%, respectively, whereas that in the knotless group ranged from 2.4% to 23.8%, 7.4% to 22.2%, and 2.4% to 19%, respectively. The mean external rotation was 54° to 65° in the knot-tying group and 61° to 99° in the knotless group. The mean forward-flexion was 164 to 172 in the knot-tying group and 165 to 174 in the knotless group. Our subjective synthesis does not reveal any difference in the outcome between the 2 groups. The available literature does not demonstrate a clear difference in functional outcomes, residual pain, and rate of complications as redislocation, subluxation, and revision surgery between Bankart repairs performed with knotted and knotless anchors. Level III, systematic review of Level I to III studies.
Author Jain, Gunjar
Datt, Rameshwar
Krishna, Anant
Morankar, Rahul
Patro, Bishnu Prasad
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: Gunjar
  surname: Jain
  fullname: Jain, Gunjar
  organization: Department of Orthopaedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, India
– sequence: 2
  givenname: Rameshwar
  surname: Datt
  fullname: Datt, Rameshwar
  email: rameshwar5189@gmail.com
  organization: Department of Orthopaedics, ESI-PGIMSR, Basaidarapur, New Delhi, India. Electronic address: rameshwar5189@gmail.com
– sequence: 3
  givenname: Anant
  surname: Krishna
  fullname: Krishna, Anant
  organization: Department of Orthopaedics, Maulana Azad Medical College & Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital, New Delhi, India
– sequence: 4
  givenname: Bishnu Prasad
  surname: Patro
  fullname: Patro, Bishnu Prasad
  organization: Department of Orthopaedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, India
– sequence: 5
  givenname: Rahul
  surname: Morankar
  fullname: Morankar, Rahul
  organization: Division of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Centre for Dental Education and Research, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi, India
BackLink https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38942097$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
BookMark eNpNkEtLw0AUhQep2If-A5FZukmcVyaJu7Y-sVioug6TyQ1OTWZqJmnpvzfUCq7O4dyPy-GM0cA6CwhdUhJSQuXNOlRN-9m4kBEmQhKFhMsTNKIRkwFnnA7--SEae78mhHCe8DM05EkqGEnjEdq-OjyvQDX4zpQlNGA1YGP7zFijVYWXXatdDR7PoN0BWPxiXdtCgZUtDr4C7_H0UMVrtzEaz5T96rvhFWyUaW7xFL_tfQu1avvjCrYGdufotFSVh4ujTtDHw_37_ClYLB-f59NFoIVMoiAXMeeSq1jxlEYJ5JEmmoKOSlqSvEgpL3JaSikSGbM4EkIlUuuCq1z1BC3ZBF3__t007rsD32a18RqqSllwnc84ibmMuGCsR6-OaJfXUGSbxtSq2Wd_W7EfEK5v1g
CitedBy_id crossref_primary_10_5397_cise_2025_00451
crossref_primary_10_2106_JBJS_25_00666
crossref_primary_10_1186_s12891_025_08832_4
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright Copyright © 2024 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright_xml – notice: Copyright © 2024 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
DBID CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
NPM
7X8
DOI 10.1016/j.arthro.2024.05.036
DatabaseName Medline
MEDLINE
MEDLINE (Ovid)
MEDLINE
MEDLINE
PubMed
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitle MEDLINE
Medline Complete
MEDLINE with Full Text
PubMed
MEDLINE (Ovid)
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitleList MEDLINE - Academic
MEDLINE
Database_xml – sequence: 1
  dbid: NPM
  name: PubMed
  url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
  sourceTypes: Index Database
– sequence: 2
  dbid: 7X8
  name: MEDLINE - Academic
  url: https://search.proquest.com/medline
  sourceTypes: Aggregation Database
DeliveryMethod no_fulltext_linktorsrc
EISSN 1526-3231
ExternalDocumentID 38942097
Genre Systematic Review
Journal Article
Comparative Study
GroupedDBID --K
.1-
.FO
.GJ
0R~
1B1
1P~
1RT
1~5
3O-
4.4
457
4G.
53G
5RE
5VS
7-5
AAEDT
AAEDW
AALRI
AAQFI
AAQQT
AAQXK
AAXUO
ABLJU
ABMAC
ABWVN
ACRPL
ADBBV
ADMUD
ADNMO
AEVXI
AFCTW
AFJKZ
AFRHN
AFTJW
AGCQF
AGQPQ
AHHHB
AITUG
AJUYK
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
AMRAJ
ASPBG
AVWKF
AZFZN
BELOY
C5W
CAG
CGR
COF
CUY
CVF
EBS
ECM
EFJIC
EIF
EJD
F5P
FDB
FEDTE
FGOYB
G-2
GBLVA
HEE
HEK
HMK
HMO
HVGLF
HZ~
IHE
J1W
KOM
M28
M31
M41
MO0
N9A
NPM
NQ-
O9-
OF~
OR-
R2-
RIG
ROL
RPZ
SAE
SEL
SES
SEW
SJN
SSZ
UHS
UV1
WUQ
XH2
Z5R
ZXP
7X8
EFKBS
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-c4685-b473363a7a39158eb5c0c1ec5f1f0bd913db1f66486727544a86ccd3abaf1f1f2
IEDL.DBID 7X8
ISICitedReferencesCount 3
ISICitedReferencesURI http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=001493873200001&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D
ISSN 1526-3231
IngestDate Sun Sep 28 11:05:48 EDT 2025
Sat May 10 01:40:52 EDT 2025
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue 5
Language English
License Copyright © 2024 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
LinkModel DirectLink
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c4685-b473363a7a39158eb5c0c1ec5f1f0bd913db1f66486727544a86ccd3abaf1f1f2
Notes ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
ObjectType-Review-3
content type line 23
PMID 38942097
PQID 3073653422
PQPubID 23479
ParticipantIDs proquest_miscellaneous_3073653422
pubmed_primary_38942097
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate May 2025
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2025-05-01
PublicationDate_xml – month: 05
  year: 2025
  text: May 2025
PublicationDecade 2020
PublicationPlace United States
PublicationPlace_xml – name: United States
PublicationTitle Arthroscopy
PublicationTitleAlternate Arthroscopy
PublicationYear 2025
SSID ssj0003383
Score 2.4779434
SecondaryResourceType review_article
Snippet To analyze whether the arthroscopic Bankart repair using a knotless suture anchor has a better functional outcome than the conventional knot-tying Bankart...
SourceID proquest
pubmed
SourceType Aggregation Database
Index Database
StartPage 1637
SubjectTerms Arthroscopy - adverse effects
Arthroscopy - instrumentation
Arthroscopy - methods
Bankart Lesions - surgery
Humans
Suture Anchors - adverse effects
Suture Techniques - adverse effects
Suture Techniques - instrumentation
Treatment Outcome
Title No Clear Difference in Clinical Outcomes Between Knotted and Knotless Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Systematic Review
URI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38942097
https://www.proquest.com/docview/3073653422
Volume 41
WOSCitedRecordID wos001493873200001&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D
hasFullText
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpZ1bS8MwFMeDOh988YK3eSOCr8E1SZvOF9mmQ1DrQIW9jdzKiiOd67bP70nb6ZMg-FL60FuS05M_OSe_g9AVp9IGXGliwtgQHmtDZEhjwtKQ8lRwUCQlxPVJJEk8HLYH9YJbUadVrnxi6ahNrv0a-bW3xShknNLb6SfxVaN8dLUuobGOGgykjLdqMfyhhbMKwwlTVEQYCJnV1rkyvwtGZjzz2_8oL9mdLPpdZJaTTX_nv5-5i7ZrmYk7lV3soTXr9tEyyXHPl4nAd3VZFG1x5nDNBp3gl8Uc3mIL3K2yt_Cjy-cgSbF0pjyfgF_0Dx17BmY-zTTuSvcBbcQg5GU2u8Ed_PrNhsZV4OEAvffv33oPpK67QDSP4pAo7hmJTArp6fGxVaFu6cDqMA3SljLtgBkVpFHkYX3UA_RkHGltmFQSrghSeog2XO7sMcJCCaFAVjERGC5SqcAvh0ILE-mAWm6b6HLVjSOwax-skM7mi2L005FNdFSNxWhaAThGILI4bbXFyR_uPkVb1JfsLXMUz1Ajhb_anqNNvZxnxeyiNBg4JoPnLyRBy04
linkProvider ProQuest
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=No+Clear+Difference+in+Clinical+Outcomes+Between+Knotted+and+Knotless+Arthroscopic+Bankart+Repair%3A+A+Systematic+Review&rft.jtitle=Arthroscopy&rft.au=Jain%2C+Gunjar&rft.au=Datt%2C+Rameshwar&rft.au=Krishna%2C+Anant&rft.au=Patro%2C+Bishnu+Prasad&rft.date=2025-05-01&rft.eissn=1526-3231&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1637&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.arthro.2024.05.036&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F38942097&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F38942097&rft.externalDocID=38942097
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1526-3231&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1526-3231&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1526-3231&client=summon