Evaluation of immobilization in external rotation after primary traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation: 5-year results

Immobilization in External Rotation Versus Arthroscopic Stabilization After Primary Anterior Shoulder Dislocation: A Systematic Review of Level 1 and 2 Studies

BACKGROUND

Arthroscopic stabilization has been established as a superior treatment option for primary glenohumeral instability when compared with immobilization in internal rotation. However, immobilization in external rotation (ER) has recently gained interest as a viable nonoperative treatment option for patients with shoulder instability.

PURPOSE

To compare the rates of recurrent instability and subsequent surgery in patients undergoing treatment for primary anterior shoulder dislocation with arthroscopic stabilization versus immobilization in ER.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify studies that'evaluated patients being treated for primary anterior glenohumeral dislocation with either arthroscopic stabilization or immobilization in ER. The search phrase used various combinations of the keywords/phrases "primary closed reduction,""anterior shoulder dislocation,""traumatic,""primary,""treatment,""management,""immobilization,""external rotation,""surgical,""operative,""nonoperative," and "conservative." Inclusion criteria included patients undergoing treatment for primary anterior glenohumeral joint dislocation with either immobilization in ER or arthroscopic stabilization. Rates of recurrent instability, subsequent stabilization surgery, return to sports, positive postintervention apprehension tests, and patient-reported outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

The 30 studies that met inclusion criteria included 760 patients undergoing arthroscopic stabilization (mean age, 23.1 years; mean follow-up time, 55.1 months) and 409 patients undergoing immobilization in ER (mean age, 29.8 years; mean follow-up time, 28.8 months). Overall, 8.8% of operative patients experienced recurrent instability at latest follow-up compared with 21.3% of patients who had undergone ER immobilization (P < .0001). Similarly, 5.7% of operative patients had undergone a subsequent stabilization procedure at latest follow-up compared with 11.3% of patients who had undergone ER immobilization (P = .0015). A higher rate of return to sports was found in the operative group (P < .05), but no other differences were found between groups.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing arthroscopic treatment for primary anterior glenohumeral dislocation with arthroscopic stabilization can be expected to experience significantly lower rates of recurrent instability and subsequent stabilization procedures compared with patients undergoing ER immobilization.

Traumatic Primary Anterior Glenohumeral Joint Dislocation in Sports: A Systematic Review of Operative versus Nonoperative Management

Anterior shoulder (glenohumeral joint [GHJ]) dislocations are relatively common injuries in sports. Previous studies have evaluated clinical outcomes of operative and nonoperative management for primary traumatic anterior GHJ dislocations. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature in an effort to provide a thorough analysis of patients after undergoing closed reduction of a traumatic anterior GHJ dislocation, particularly among the athletic population. Two independent reviewers performed a comprehensive search of PubMed and the Cochrane Library through February 23, 2020. Unfortunately, the quantity and quality of published articles on this subject is very limited. In many studies, younger age (between 21 and 30 years) was associated with greater risk for recurrence of GHJ dislocations. Twelve studies (total N = 753) directly compared outcomes of operative versus nonoperative management. It seems that operative management significantly reduces recurrence rates with patients treated operatively among the young and active population. Operative management should be considered as a treatment option for young and athletic patients presenting with a first-time anterior GHJ dislocation.

External rotation bracing for first-time anterior dislocation of the shoulder: A discontinued randomised controlled trial comparing external rotation bracing with conventional sling

INTRODUCTION

Itoi et al. introduced the concept of bracing in abduction and external rotation to treat traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations. However, controversy remains as studies have reported variable results. Our study investigates whether there is a difference in outcomes between treatment with a conventional sling or external rotation brace.

METHODS

A prospective, multi-centre randomised control trial was conducted between 2006 and 2010. The study was discontinued early with 72 (36 cases in each group) first-time anterior shoulder dislocations recruited.

RESULTS

The re-dislocation rate over 24 months was comparable 30% (95% CI: 17-47) sling vs. 24% (95% CI: 13-41) external rotation bracing. Sixteen percent (95% CI: 7-32) of sling patients and 12% (95% CI: 5-27) of external rotation-bracing patients had shoulder stabilisation surgery within 24 months of the initial dislocation (p > 0.05). There was no difference in OSI scores at 24 months between the two treatment groups and intolerability of the external rotation brace was high.

CONCLUSION

Recruitment to this study was difficult, and lost-to-follow-up rates were high leading to early discontinuation of the study. The results suggest that ER bracing is unlikely to provide clinical benefit in traumatic first-time anterior shoulder dislocation.

Conservative management following closed reduction of traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder

BACKGROUND

Acute anterior shoulder dislocation, which is the most common type of dislocation, usually results from an injury. Subsequently, the shoulder is less stable and is more susceptible to re-dislocation or recurrent instability (e.g. subluxation), especially in active young adults. After closed reduction, most of these injuries are treated with immobilisation of the injured arm in a sling or brace for a few weeks, followed by exercises. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2006 and last updated in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of conservative interventions after closed reduction of traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder. These might include immobilisation, rehabilitative interventions or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro and trial registries. We also searched conference proceedings and reference lists of included studies. Date of last search: May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing conservative interventions with no treatment, a different intervention or a variant of the intervention (e.g. a different duration) for treating people after closed reduction of a primary traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation. Inclusion was regardless of age, sex or mechanism of injury. Primary outcomes were re-dislocation, patient-reported shoulder instability measures and return to pre-injury activities. Secondary outcomes included participant satisfaction, health-related quality of life, any instability and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We pooled results of comparable groups of studies. We assessed risk of bias with the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and the quality of the evidence with the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven trials (six randomised controlled trials and one quasi-randomised controlled trial) with 704 participants; three of these trials (234 participants) are new to this update. The mean age across the trials was 29 years (range 12 to 90 years), and 82% of the participants were male. All trials compared immobilisation in external rotation (with or without an additional abduction component) versus internal rotation (the traditional method) following closed reduction. No trial evaluated any other interventions or comparisons, such as rehabilitation. All trials provided data for a follow-up of one year or longer; the commonest length was two years or longer.All trials were at some risk of bias, commonly performance and detection biases given the lack of blinding. Two trials were at high risk of selection bias and some trials were affected by attrition bias for some outcomes. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low for all outcomes.We are uncertain whether immobilisation in external rotation makes a difference to the risk of re-dislocation after 12 months' or longer follow-up compared with immobilisation in internal rotation (55/245 versus 73/243; risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 1.19; 488 participants; 6 studies; I² = 61%; very low certainty evidence). In a moderate-risk population with an illustrative risk of 312 per 1000 people experiencing a dislocation in the internal rotation group, this equates to 103 fewer (95% CI 194 fewer to 60 more) re-dislocations after immobilisation in external rotation. Thus this result covers the possibility of a benefit for each intervention.Individually, the four studies (380 participants) reporting on validated patient-reported outcome measures for shoulder instability at a minimum of 12 months' follow-up found no evidence of a clinically important difference between the two interventions.We are uncertain of the relative effects of the two methods of immobilisation on resumption of pre-injury activities or sports. One study (169 participants) found no evidence of a difference between interventions in the return to pre-injury activity of the affected arm. Two studies (135 participants) found greater return to sports in the external rotation group in a subgroup of participants who had sustained their injury during sports activities.None of the trials reported on participant satisfaction or health-related quality of life.We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the two interventions in the number of participants experiencing instability, defined as either re-dislocation or subluxation (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.14; 395 participants, 3 studies; very low certainty evidence).Data on adverse events were collected only in an ad hoc way in the seven studies. Reported "transient and resolved adverse events" were nine cases of shoulder stiffness or rigidity in the external rotation group and two cases of axillary rash in the internal rotation group. There were three "important" adverse events: hyperaesthesia and moderate hand pain; eighth cervical dermatome paraesthesia; and major movement restriction between 6 and 12 months. It was unclear to what extent these three events could be attributed to the treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence from randomised trials is limited to that comparing immobilisation in external versus internal rotation. Overall, the evidence is insufficient to draw firm conclusions about whether immobilisation in external rotation confers any benefit over immobilisation in internal rotation.Considering that there are several unpublished and ongoing trials evaluating immobilisation in external versus internal rotation, the main priority for research on this question consists of the publication of completed trials and the completion and publication of ongoing trials. Meanwhile, evaluation of other interventions, including rehabilitation, is warranted. There is a need for sufficiently large, good-quality, well-reported randomised controlled trials with long-term follow-up. Future research should aim to determine the optimal immobilisation duration, precise indications for immobilisation, optimal rehabilitation interventions, and the acceptability of these different interventions.

The Epidemiology and Natural History of Anterior Shoulder Instability

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to outline the natural history and best clinical practices for nonoperative management of anterior shoulder instability.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies continue to demonstrate a role for nonoperative treatment in the successful long-term management of anterior glenohumeral instability. The success of different positions of shoulder immobilization is reviewed as well. There are specific patients who may be best treated with nonoperative means after anterior glenohumeral instability. There are also patients who are not good nonoperative candidates based on a number of factors that are outlined in this review. There continues to be no definitive literature regarding the return to play of in-season athletes. Successful management requires a thorough understanding of the epidemiology, pathoanatomy, history, physical examination, diagnostic imaging modalities, and natural history of operative and nonoperative treatment.

Glenohumeral and scapulohumeral kinematic analysis of patients with traumatic anterior instability wearing a shoulder brace: a prospective laboratory study

PURPOSE

To assess the effectiveness of a novel glenohumeral joint immobilizer, the S2 Shoulder Stabilizer^®, by evaluating shoulder kinematics with a stereophotogrammetry system.

METHODS

Participants in this prospective laboratory study were recruited from patients with anterior traumatic instability awaiting arthroscopic glenohumeral stabilization. Glenohumeral and scapulohumeral kinematic data (arm abduction-adduction and internal-external rotation, and scapular pronation-retraction and mediolateral rotation) were collected twice, without and with the brace, using a VICON™ motion capture system, and processed with MATLAB^® software.

RESULTS

The tests showed a significantly lower joint angle during abduction-adduction (p = 0.0022) and external rotation (p = 0.0076) and a significantly lower (p = 0.0022) mediolateral scapular rotation angle in the limbs wearing the immobilizer. Humeral head translation during abduction-adduction and internal-external rotation was also lower in the patients wearing the brace.

CONCLUSIONS

The immobilizer significantly limited joint excursion in all planes of movement except internal rotation. The narrower humeral head translation with respect to the trunk, measured in the tests with the brace, demonstrates that the immobilizer achieves the goal of preserving joint stability in the movements that are at risk of dislocation.

Effect of glenohumeral position on contact pressure between the capsulolabral complex and the glenoid in free ALPSA and Bankart lesions

PURPOSE

Anterior shoulder dislocation is a common injury, but the optimal management of dislocation remains controversial. We hypothesized that reducing the shoulder in externally rotated position would aid the reduction in capsulolabral lesions. Thus, in this study, contact pressure between the capsulolabral lesion and the glenoid in free ALPSA and Bankart lesions was measured using a cadaver model.

METHODS

In 10 specimens, the humerus was externally rotated by abduction on the coronal plane to measure the contact pressure between the capsulolabral complex and glenoid in free ALPSA and Bankart lesions using a Tekscan pressure system. Stability of the joint was confirmed using the Vicon motion analysis system.

RESULTS

In the normal shoulder joint, the peak pressure between the subscapularis muscle and the anterior capsule according to the location of the glenohumeral joint decreased to 83.4 ± 21.2 kPa in the 0° abduction and -30° external rotation positions and showed a 300.7 ± 42.9 kPa peak value in the 60° abduction and 60° external rotation positions. In both free ALPSA and Bankart lesions, the lowest pressure between the labral lesion and the glenoid was measured at 0° abduction and -30° external rotation, and the highest pressure was recorded at 60° external rotation and 60° abduction.

CONCLUSION

The contact pressure between the capsulolabral complex and the glenoid significantly increased when the abduction and external rotation angles were increased. Based on our results, the conservative management in free ALPSA lesions would respond better than Bankart lesions.

IRB OR ETHICAL COMMITTEE APPROVAL

YWMR-12-0-038.

Does the position of shoulder immobilization after reduced anterior glenohumeral dislocation affect coaptation of a Bankart lesion? An arthrographic comparison

Background

The position of immobilization after anterior shoulder dislocation has been a controversial topic over the past decade. We compared the effect of post-reduction immobilization, whether external rotation or internal rotation, on coaptation of the torn labrum.

Materials and methods

Twenty patients aged <40 years with primary anterior shoulder dislocation without associated fractures were randomized to post-reduction external rotation immobilization (nine patients) or internal rotation (11 patients). After 3 weeks, magnetic resonance arthrography was performed. Displacement, separation, and opening angle parameters were assessed and analyzed.

Results

Separation (1.16 ± 1.11 vs 2.43 ± 1.17 mm), displacement (1.73 ± 1.64 vs 2.28 ± 1.36 mm), and opening angle (15.00 ± 15.84 vs 27.86 ± 14.74 °) in the externally rotated group were decreased in comparison to the internally rotated group. A statistically significant difference between groups was seen only for separation (p = 0.028); p values of displacement and opening angle were 0.354 and 0.099, respectively.

Conclusion

External rotation immobilization after reduction of primary anterior shoulder dislocation could result in a decrease in anterior capsule detachment and labral reduction.

Level of evidence

Level 2.

Low-cost alternative external rotation shoulder brace and review of treatment in acute shoulder dislocations

Traumatic dislocations of the shoulder commonly present to emergency departments (EDs). Immediate closed reduction of both anterior and posterior glenohumeral dislocations is recommended and is frequently performed in the ED. Recurrence of dislocation is common, as anteroinferior labral tears (Bankart lesions) are present in many anterior shoulder dislocations.14,15,18,23 Immobilization of the shoulder following closed reduction is therefore recommended; previous studies support the use of immobilization with the shoulder in a position of external rotation, for both anterior and posterior shoulder dislocations.7-11,19 In this study, we present a technique for assembling a low-cost external rotation shoulder brace using materials found in most hospitals: cotton roll, stockinette, and shoulder immobilizers. This brace is particularly suited for the uninsured patient, who lacks the financial resources to pay for a pre-fabricated brace out of pocket. We also performed a cost analysis for our low-cost external rotation shoulder brace, and a cost comparison with pre-fabricated brand name braces. At our institution, the total materials cost for our brace was $19.15. The cost of a pre-fabricated shoulder brace at our institution is $150 with markup, which is reimbursed on average at $50.40 according to our hospital billing data. The low-cost external rotation shoulder brace is therefore a more affordable option for the uninsured patient presenting with acute shoulder dislocation.