FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3194697333> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3194697333 abstract "Abstract Background The primary aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair and open Latarjet procedure for recurrent dislocation of the shoulder. Secondary aims were to assess and compare the cost-effectiveness, satisfaction and complications, including recurrence and infection. Methods We retrospectively evaluated the patients who underwent either arthroscopic Bankart repair with or without Remplissage procedure or open Latarjet procedure between May 2015 and May 2018. The preoperative data were collected from the hospital records, and the postoperative data were collected during the follow-up visit. At the final follow-up, 41(male=32, female=9) patients in the Bankart group and 40(male=34 and female=6) patients in the Latarjet group were included in the study. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the ASES score, Rowe score, and Quick DASH score. A self-constructed scale that consisted of satisfied and dissatisfied was used to measure the level of satisfaction. Any complications were recorded in every follow-up visit. Collected data were analyzed using SPSS version 25. Results There was no statistically significant difference regarding the age (p=0.401), gender (p=0.569), site of involvement (p=0.158), number of preoperative dislocations (p=0.085), follow-up (p=0.061), between the two groups. Similarly, no statistically significant difference existed regarding the ASES score (p=0.388), Rowe score (p=0.211), and Quick DASH score (p=0.713). The average external rotation was 83 degrees in the Bankart group and 85 degrees in the Latarjet group (p=0.140). Functional satisfaction was higher in the Laterjet group compared to the Bankart group (p=0.482). Hundred percent of the patients were cosmetically satisfied in the Bankart group, whereas only 32(80%) patients were cosmetically satisfied in the Latarjet group (p=0.002). There was a significantly higher operating cost for arthroscopic Bankart repair compared to open Latarjet procedure (p<0.001). Three patients had a recurrence in the Bankart group, whereas no recurrence occurred in the Latarjet group. And, 2 superficial infections occurred in the Latarjet group. Conclusion These results provide the fact that arthroscopic Bankart repair might be a fancy and minimally invasive procedure, Latarjet procedure should still be a priority in a developing country like Nepal, where financial cost is a huge burden." @default.
• W3194697333 created "2021-08-30" @default.
• W3194697333 creator A5001841366 @default.
• W3194697333 creator A5002865280 @default.
• W3194697333 creator A5018694088 @default.
• W3194697333 creator A5039543294 @default.
• W3194697333 creator A5040136467 @default.
• W3194697333 creator A5054519038 @default.
• W3194697333 creator A5056340592 @default.
• W3194697333 creator A5062367550 @default.
• W3194697333 date "2020-06-23" @default.
• W3194697333 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W3194697333 title "Arthroscopic Bankart Repair vs. Open Latarjet Procedure: A Comparative Study of Clinical and Functional Results." @default.
• W3194697333 doi "https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-36217/v1" @default.
• W3194697333 hasPublicationYear "2020" @default.
• W3194697333 type Work @default.
• W3194697333 sameAs 3194697333 @default.
• W3194697333 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3194697333 crossrefType "posted-content" @default.
• W3194697333 hasAuthorship W3194697333A5001841366 @default.
• W3194697333 hasAuthorship W3194697333A5002865280 @default.
• W3194697333 hasAuthorship W3194697333A5018694088 @default.
• W3194697333 hasAuthorship W3194697333A5039543294 @default.
• W3194697333 hasAuthorship W3194697333A5040136467 @default.
• W3194697333 hasAuthorship W3194697333A5054519038 @default.
• W3194697333 hasAuthorship W3194697333A5056340592 @default.
• W3194697333 hasAuthorship W3194697333A5062367550 @default.
• W3194697333 hasBestOaLocation W31946973331 @default.
• W3194697333 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W3194697333 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W3194697333 hasConcept C2775944032 @default.
• W3194697333 hasConcept C2776090536 @default.
• W3194697333 hasConcept C2777307732 @default.
• W3194697333 hasConcept C2778436160 @default.
• W3194697333 hasConcept C2780879209 @default.
• W3194697333 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W3194697333 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3194697333 hasConceptScore W3194697333C111919701 @default.
• W3194697333 hasConceptScore W3194697333C141071460 @default.
• W3194697333 hasConceptScore W3194697333C2775944032 @default.
• W3194697333 hasConceptScore W3194697333C2776090536 @default.
• W3194697333 hasConceptScore W3194697333C2777307732 @default.
• W3194697333 hasConceptScore W3194697333C2778436160 @default.
• W3194697333 hasConceptScore W3194697333C2780879209 @default.
• W3194697333 hasConceptScore W3194697333C41008148 @default.
• W3194697333 hasConceptScore W3194697333C71924100 @default.
• W3194697333 hasLocation W31946973331 @default.
• W3194697333 hasOpenAccess W3194697333 @default.
• W3194697333 hasPrimaryLocation W31946973331 @default.
• W3194697333 hasRelatedWork W2040287245 @default.
• W3194697333 hasRelatedWork W2621373190 @default.
• W3194697333 hasRelatedWork W2755908773 @default.
• W3194697333 hasRelatedWork W2806984864 @default.
• W3194697333 hasRelatedWork W2883751602 @default.
• W3194697333 hasRelatedWork W2952534369 @default.
• W3194697333 hasRelatedWork W3155213728 @default.
• W3194697333 hasRelatedWork W4282945275 @default.
• W3194697333 hasRelatedWork W4308806266 @default.
• W3194697333 hasRelatedWork W4362546151 @default.
• W3194697333 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3194697333 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3194697333 magId "3194697333" @default.
• W3194697333 workType "article" @default.