Studies on Bankart Repair for Anterior Shoulder Instability Show Poor Reporting of Data and Reflect Low Level of Evidence: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To assess the quality and level of evidence of studies reporting on Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A search was performed using the PubMed/Medline database for all studies that reported clinical outcomes on Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability. The search term "Bankart repair" with all results were analyzed via strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two independent investigators scored each included study based on the 10 criteria of the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (CMS) out of 100 and gave each study a score out of 25 based on the Anterior Shoulder Instability (ASI) Methodology criteria. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-six studies were included in the analysis and encompassed a total of 19,156 patients and 19,317 surgical procedures for Bankart repair for shoulder instability. Overall, 81.6% of studies were Level III or IV evidence. The mean CMS score for the studies was 55.3 out of 100, and the mean ASI Methodology score for the studies was 12.1 out of 25. Weaknesses in the studies were identified in sample size, description of preoperative investigations and diagnoses, reporting of mean glenoid bone loss, nonsubjective clinical outcome reporting, and description of associated pathologies. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of studies reporting the clinical outcomes of Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability are of low methodological quality and have a low level of evidence. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study emphasizes need for greater reporting of many variables such as body mass index, mean glenoid bone loss, and patient-reported outcomes and provides a framework for future studies reporting.

Clinical outcomes in prospective versus retrospective studies on arthroscopic Bankart repair: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The majority of the current literature on arthroscopic Bankart repair is retrospective, and discrepancies exist regarding clinical outcomes including recurrent instability and return to play among studies of different levels of evidence. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to perform a systematic review of the literature to compare the outcomes of prospective and retrospective studies on arthroscopic Bankart repair. METHODS: A search was performed using the PubMed/Medline database for all studies that reported clinical outcomes on Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability. The search term "Bankart repair" was used, with all results being analyzed via strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Three independent investigators extracted data and scored each included study based on the 10 criteria of the Modified Coleman Methodology Score out of 100. A χ2 test was performed to assess if recurrent instability, revision, return to play, and complications are independent of prospective and retrospective studies. RESULTS: A total of 193 studies were included in the analysis, with 53 prospective studies and 140 retrospective in design. These studies encompassed a total of 13,979 patients and 14,019 surgical procedures for Bankart repair for shoulder instability. The rate of redislocation in the prospective studies was 8.0% vs. 5.9% in retrospective studies (P < .001). The rate of recurrent subluxation in the prospective studies was 3.4% vs. 2.4% in retrospective studies (P = .004). The rate of revision was higher in retrospective studies at 4.9% vs. 3.9% in prospective studies (P = .013). There was no significant difference in terms of overall rate to return to play between prospective and retrospective studies (90% and 91%, respectively; P = .548). The overall rate of non-instability complications in the prospective cohort was 0.27% vs. 0.78% in the retrospective studies (P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: The overall rates of recurrent dislocations-subluxations are higher in prospective studies than retrospective studies. However, rates of revision were reportedly higher in retrospective studies. Complications after arthroscopic Bankart repair are rare in both prospective and retrospective studies, and there was no difference in rates of return to play.

Tranexamic Acid for Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted to assess the use of tranexamic acid (TXA) in the setting of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR). However, these studies have shown mixed results, with some showing improved intraoperative visualization, subsequent operative times, and pain levels, and others finding no difference. PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review of the RCTs in the literature to evaluate the use of TXA on ARCR. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: Two independent reviewers performed the literature search based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, with a third author resolving any discrepancies. RCTs comparing TXA with a control in ARCR were included. Visualization, postoperative pain, operative time, pump pressures, and shoulder swelling were evaluated. A P value < .05 was deemed statistically significant. RESULTS: Six RCTs with 450 patients were included in this review. Overall, 5 studies evaluated intraoperative visualization, with 3 studies finding a significant difference in favor of TXA. With TXA, patients had a lower mean postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score of 3.3, and with the control, patients had a mean VAS score of 4.1, which was statistically significant (P = .001). With TXA, the mean weighted operation time was 79.3 minutes, and with the control, the mean operation time was 88.8 minutes, which was statistically significant (P = .001). No study found any difference in intraoperative pump pressures or swelling. CONCLUSION: TXA improved visualization, operative time, and subsequent postoperative pain levels in patients undergoing ARCR.

Evaluating the Quality and Usability of Artificial Intelligence-Generated Responses to Common Patient Questions in Foot and Ankle Surgery.

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) platforms, such as ChatGPT, have become increasingly popular outlets for the consumption and distribution of health care-related advice. Because of a lack of regulation and oversight, the reliability of health care-related responses has become a topic of controversy in the medical community. To date, no study has explored the quality of AI-derived information as it relates to common foot and ankle pathologies. This study aims to assess the quality and educational benefit of ChatGPT responses to common foot and ankle-related questions. Methods: ChatGPT was asked a series of 5 questions, including "What is the optimal treatment for ankle arthritis?" "How should I decide on ankle arthroplasty versus ankle arthrodesis?" "Do I need surgery for Jones fracture?" "How can I prevent Charcot arthropathy?" and "Do I need to see a doctor for my ankle sprain?" Five responses (1 per each question) were included after applying the exclusion criteria. The content was graded using DISCERN (a well-validated informational analysis tool) and AIRM (a self-designed tool for exercise evaluation). Results: Health care professionals graded the ChatGPT-generated responses as bottom tier 4.5% of the time, middle tier 27.3% of the time, and top tier 68.2% of the time. Conclusion: Although ChatGPT and other related AI platforms have become a popular means for medical information distribution, the educational value of the AI-generated responses related to foot and ankle pathologies was variable. With 4.5% of responses receiving a bottom-tier rating, 27.3% of responses receiving a middle-tier rating, and 68.2% of responses receiving a top-tier rating, health care professionals should be aware of the high viewership of variable-quality content easily accessible on ChatGPT. Level of Evidence: Level III, cross sectional study.

Primary Latarjet procedure versus Latarjet in the setting of previously failed Bankart repair: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to systematically review the comparative studies in the literature to compare the outcomes of the Latarjet procedure in the setting of a previously failed Bankart repair versus those undergoing the Latarjet procedure as a primary surgery for anterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A systematic search in Pubmed, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library databases was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Cohort studies comparing outcomes in the Latarjet procedure as a primary surgery versus the Latarjet procedure in the setting of a previously failed Bankart repair were included. RESULTS: Ten studies with 1913 patients were included. There was a significantly lower rate of recurrent instability in those with a Latarjet procedure as a primary surgery (4.8% vs 12.1%, p â€‹= â€‹0.007). There was also a significantly lower rate of complications with the Latarjet procedure as a primary surgery (6.2% vs 10.2%, p â€‹= â€‹0.03). Furthermore, there was a significant difference in the rate of revision surgery in favour of the Latarjet procedure as a primary surgery (4.8% vs 10.9%, p â€‹= â€‹0.02). However, there were similar rates of redislocations (2.8% vs 3.4%, p â€‹= â€‹0.82) and return to play (67.7% vs 78.5%, p â€‹= â€‹0.30) between the two cohorts. CONCLUSION: This study found that the Latarjet procedure as a revision procedure for a previously failed Bankart repair resulted in higher rates of complications, recurrent instability, and revisions than the Latarjet procedure performed as a primary procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis of Level III studies.