Immobilization in internal or external rotation does not change recurrence rates after traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation

No Difference in Pain and Activities of Daily Living Between Immobilization in External and Internal Rotation Following Acute Anterior Shoulder Dislocation: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background The conventional treatment for anterior shoulder dislocations is immobilising the arm in adduction and internal rotation. However, recent basic science and clinical data indicate that immobilization in external rotation can reduce recurrent instability. The use of external rotation brace is not widespread, due to compliance and convenience issues. The purpose of our study is to compare pain and restriction in day-to-day activities experienced by patients after being immobilized in the two types of braces (external rotation and internal rotation) at the end of one week. Methods Between February 2023 to July 2024, 50 patients with acute shoulder dislocation (primary or recurrent) were randomized (concealed, computer-generated) to immobilization with either an internal rotation brace (n=26) or an external rotation brace (n=24). Validated scores (Pain-visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, Katz Index for independence in activities of daily living) were used to collect data on the day of Immobilization and at the end of one week of immobilization. Results There was no statistically significant difference (P>0.05) in Pain-VAS and Katz Index scores among the two brace types (external rotation and internal rotation) at the end of one week of follow-up. There was no loss in follow-up in either of our study groups. Conclusion Immobilization in external rotation after reduction of acute shoulder dislocation did not significantly differ from immobilization in internal rotation in terms of pain and limitations in activities of daily living experienced by the patient in the first week of immobilization.

A Literature Review on Whether Immobilization of the Shoulder in External Rotation Improves Healing and Prevents the Recurrence of Acute Shoulder Dislocations

Shoulder dislocations are one of the most frequent joint dislocations, with recurrent dislocations being a common complication. Common practice is to immobilize the shoulder in internal rotation for two to three weeks following closed reduction. However, recent literature suggests immobilization in external rotation can be an alternative management strategy. External rotation braces have been manufactured over the years to support and maintain this position. This literature review aims to gather current evidence on the conservative management of primary traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations and compare the immobilization of the shoulder joint in internal and external rotation. A literature search and review was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar. Key phrases and words that were used in the search engines included "shoulder immobilization" AND "external rotation", "anterior shoulder dislocation immobilization" AND "external rotation", "reduced recurrence rate of shoulder dislocation" AND "external rotation", "external rotation immobilization" AND "Bankart lesion" and "internal versus external rotation" AND "shoulder dislocation". The reviewed articles included were dated from 2014 to 2024 but additional valuable studies dating earlier than 2014 were also included to provide a foundation of understanding to this review. Included were nine clinical studies and randomized controlled trials, three cadaveric studies, eight studies focusing on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) or arthroscopy, and seven systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Research revealed improved coaptation of the labrum on the glenoid rim in external rotation not only in cadavers but also in patients with the aid of various imaging techniques. However, these findings were not consistently observed when translated into clinical trials. Based on the available data presented in this literature review, there remains a deficiency in evidence to exclusively support the use of external rotation immobilization over conventional internal rotation immobilization after primary traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations. External rotation immobilization may benefit a specific population, particularly those that fall in the 20-40-year-old age group, with a specific injury pattern, such as Bankart lesions and greater tuberosity fractures; therefore, further studies are required to determine who will benefit the most from such interventions.

Long-term effect of immobilization in external rotation after first-time shoulder dislocation: an average 18-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

Immobilization in external rotation (ER) after a first-time shoulder dislocation was introduced to reduce the risk of recurrence compared with immobilization in internal rotation (IR), but its efficacy remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to determine the long-term effect of immobilization in ER after a first-time shoulder dislocation.

METHODS

Between October 2000 and March 2004, 198 patients with a first-time anterior dislocation of the shoulder (average age 37) were randomly assigned to immobilization in ER (ER group = 104 shoulders) or IR (IR group = 94 shoulders) for 3 weeks. At an average 2-year follow-up, 159 patients (80.3%) were available for evaluation. In the current study, these 159 patients were further followed up and interviewed by telephone. The following items were evaluated: recurrent instability, apprehensive feeling, surgical intervention, limitation in the range of motion, return to sports, and the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score.

RESULTS

The average follow-up period was 18.2 years (range, 16-20 years). Fifty-six patients were available for follow-up with the follow-up rate of 35%. The number of recurrent patients was 6 of 27 (22%) in the ER group and 6 of 29 (21%) in the IR group (P = .889). The number of surgically stabilized patients was 3 of 27 (11%) in the ER group and 10 of 29 (34%) in the IR group (P = .038). In total, the recurrence rate was 33% (9 of 27) in the ER group and 55% (16 of 29) in the IR group (P = .100). Adding the surgical cases and those with the SANE score ≤70% as failure cases, the failure rate in the ER group (26%) was significantly lower than that in the IR group (52%) (P = .048). Among those who survived without surgical intervention, there were no significant differences in apprehensive feeling, return to sports, limited range of motion, and the SANE score between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Immobilization in ER reduced the risk of surgical intervention compared with IR in the long term.

Anterior Shoulder Instability Part I-Diagnosis, Nonoperative Management, and Bankart Repair-An International Consensus Statement

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to establish consensus statements via a modified Delphi process on the diagnosis, nonoperative management, and Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability.

METHODS

A consensus process on the treatment using a modified Delphi technique was conducted, with 65 shoulder surgeons from 14 countries across 5 continents participating. Experts were assigned to one of 9 working groups defined by specific subtopics of interest within anterior shoulder instability.

RESULTS

The independent factors identified in the 2 statements that reached unanimous agreement in diagnosis and nonoperative management were age, gender, mechanism of injury, number of instability events, whether reduction was required, occupation, sport/position/level played, collision sport, glenoid or humeral bone-loss, and hyperlaxity. Of the 3 total statements reaching unanimous agreement in Bankart repair, additional factors included overhead sport participation, prior shoulder surgery, patient expectations, and ability to comply with postoperative rehabilitation. Additionally, there was unanimous agreement that complications are rare following Bankart repair and that recurrence rates can be diminished by a well-defined rehabilitation protocol, inferior anchor placement (5-8 mm apart), multiple small-anchor fixation points, treatment of concomitant pathologies, careful capsulolabral debridement/reattachment, and appropriate indications/assessment of risk factors.

CONCLUSION

Overall, 77% of statements reached unanimous or strong consensus. The statements that reached unanimous consensus were the aspects of patient history that should be evaluated in those with acute instability, the prognostic factors for nonoperative management, and Bankart repair. Furthermore, there was unanimous consensus on the steps to minimize complications for Bankart repair, and the placement of anchors 5-8 mm apart. Finally, there was no consensus on the optimal position for shoulder immobilization.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V, expert opinion.

Immobilisation in external rotation after first-time traumatic anterior shoulder instability reduces recurrent instability: a meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Cadaveric and MRI findings have demonstrated significantly less labral separation and displacement when the shoulder is placed in external rotation as compared with internal rotation.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the current study is to meta-analyse the randomised controlled trials in the literature to compare immobilisation in external versus internal rotation after first-time anterior shoulder dislocation.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomised controlled trials comparing immobilisation in external rotation versus internal rotation for first-time anterior shoulder dislocation were included.

FINDINGS

Nine randomised controlled trials with 795 patients were included. The mean age of included patients was 29 years, 82.4% were male and the mean follow-up was 25.5 months. As compared with immobilisation in internal rotation, compliance was significantly higher (74.5% vs 67.4%, p=0.01), and the rate of recurrent dislocations was significantly lower (22.2% vs 33.4%, p=0.02) with immobilisation in external rotation. Additionally, in patients 20-40 years old the rate of recurrent dislocations was significantly lower in those treated with immobilisation in external rotation than internal rotation (12.1% vs 31.4%, p=0.006). Immobilisation in external rotation also resulted in a higher rate of return to preinjury level of play (60.1% vs 42.6%, p=0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Immobilisation of the shoulder in external rotation after a traumatic first-time anterior shoulder dislocation results in a higher compliance rate, a lower recurrent dislocation rate and a higher rate of return to play as compared with immobilisation in internal rotation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I.

Immobilization in External Rotation Reduces the Risk of Recurrence After Primary Anterior Shoulder Dislocation: A Meta-analysis

Background

The best method for nonsurgical treatment after primary dislocation of the shoulder is not clear. The efficacy of immobilization with the arm in external rotation (ER) compared with internal rotation (IR) remains controversial.

Purpose

To determine the efficacy of ER immobilization versus IR immobilization on recurrence rate after primary dislocation of the shoulder from the evidence of randomized controlled trials.

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2.

Methods

Electronic databases (MEDLINE [Ovid SP], PubMed, Web of Science, EBM reviews, and CINAHL) and available proceedings according to the abstracts of major international meetings related to or including shoulder injuries and trauma were used to search for randomized controlled trials. Two independent investigators determined eligibility and carried out data extraction from the selected studies.

Results

A total of 9 studies (817 patients) were selected for this meta-analysis. They included 668 male and 149 female patients, with a mean age ranging from 20.3 to 37.5 years. In the 9 pooled studies, the recurrence rate of shoulder dislocation was 21.5% (84/390) in the ER group versus 34.9% (130/373) in the IR group. ER immobilization significantly reduced the recurrence rate compared with IR immobilization (risk ratio, 0.56; P = .007). In the subgroup analysis of those immobilized full-time, ER immobilization was significantly more effective than IR immobilization in reducing the recurrence rate (risk ratio, 0.57; P = .01). In the subgroup analysis of age, ER immobilization was significantly more effective than IR immobilization in those aged 20 to 40 years but not in those younger than 20 years.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis demonstrates that ER immobilization reduces the recurrence rate after primary shoulder dislocation compared with IR immobilization in patients older than 20 years. When treating a patient with primary shoulder dislocation, the clinician should provide this information to the patient before a treatment method is selected.

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.

Treatment after traumatic shoulder dislocation: a systematic review with a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To review and compare treatments (1) after primary traumatic shoulder dislocation aimed at minimising the risk of chronic shoulder instability and (2) for chronic post-traumatic shoulder instability.

DESIGN

Intervention systematic review with random effects network meta-analysis and direct comparison meta-analyses.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, DARE, HTA, NHSEED, Web of Science) and reference lists were searched from inception to 15 January 2018.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised trials comparing any interventions either after a first-time, traumatic shoulder dislocation or chronic post-traumatic shoulder instability, with a shoulder instability, function or quality of life outcome.

RESULTS

Twenty-two randomised controlled trials were included. There was moderate quality evidence suggesting that labrum repair reduced the risk of future shoulder dislocation (relative risk 0.15; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.8, p=0.026), and that with non-surgical management 47% of patients did not experience shoulder redislocation. Very low to low-quality evidence suggested no benefit of immobilisation in external rotation versus internal rotation. There was low-quality evidence that an open procedure was superior to arthroscopic surgery for preventing shoulder redislocations.

CONCLUSIONS

There was moderate-quality evidence that half of the patients managed with physiotherapy after a first-time traumatic shoulder dislocation did not experience recurrent shoulder dislocations. If chronic instability develops, surgery could be considered. There was no evidence regarding the effectiveness of surgical management for post-traumatic chronic shoulder instability.

Nonoperative treatment of five common shoulder injuries: A critical analysis

Economic pressure highlights the critical need for appropriate diagnosis and treatment of various shoulder pathologies since under-diagnosis and under-treatment can result in increased costs to society in the form of disability and lost production. On the other hand, aggressive over-treatment can further inflate already burgeoning health-care costs and potentially harm the patient. Therefore, it is crucial to distinguish the indications between operative and nonoperative management, especially in common shoulder pathologies such as rotator cuff tears, anterior shoulder instability, biceps tendinitis, lesions to the acromioclavicular joint, and proximal humeral fractures. As a result, a detailed analysis of individual risk factors for potential failures should be performed and treatment should be based on individualized care with consideration given to each patient’s particular injury pattern, functional demands, and long-term goals.

Traumatic anterior instability of the shoulder

The shoulder is the most unstable joint in the human body. Traumatic anterior instability of the shoulder is a common condition, which, especially in young patients, is associated with high recurrence rates. The effectiveness of non-surgical treatments when compared to surgical ones is still controversial. The purpose of this study was to review the literature for current concepts and updates regarding the treatment of this condition.

Position of Immobilization After First-Time Traumatic Anterior Glenohumeral Dislocation: A Literature Review

Anterior glenohumeral dislocation affects about 2% of the general population during the lifetime. The incidence of traumatic glenohumeral dislocation ranges from 8.2 to 26.69 per 100 000 population per year. The most common complication is recurrent dislocation occurring in 17–96% of the patients. The majority of patients are treated conservatively by closed reduction and immobilization in internal rotation for 2–3 weeks. However, no clear conservative treatment protocol exists. Immobilization in external rotation can be considered an alternative. A range of external rotation braces are commercially available.

The purpose of this work was to review the current literature on conservative management of glenohumeral dislocation and to compare the results of immobilization in internal and external rotation.

A comprehensive literature search and review was performed using the keywords “glenohumeral dislocation”, “shoulder dislocation”, “immobilization”, “external rotation”, and “recurrent dislocation” in PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases from their inceptions to May 2016.

Three cadaveric studies, 6 imaging studies, 10 clinical studies, and 4 meta-analyses were identified. The total number of 734 patients were included in the clinical studies.

Literature analysis revealed better coaptation of the labrum on the glenoid rim in external rotation in cadaveric and imaging studies. However, this tendency was not confirmed by lower redislocation rates or better quality of life in clinical studies.

On the basis of the available literature, we cannot confirm the superiority of immobilization in external rotation after glenohumeral dislocation when compared to internal rotation. A yet-to-be-determined group of patients with specific labroligamentous injury pattern may benefit from immobilization in external rotation. Further studies are needed to identify these patients.

The True Recurrence Rate and Factors Predicting Recurrent Instability After Nonsurgical Management of Traumatic Primary Anterior Shoulder Dislocation: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To (1) define the cumulative recurrence rate after primary anterior shoulder dislocation in Level I and II comparative studies and (2) to pool risk ratios for common risk factors to provide a clinically practical hierarchy of modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors for recurrence.

METHODS

Level I and II prognostic studies were identified using the electronic databases CINAHL, Embase, and MEDLINE from inception to December 2014. Included studies (n = 15) had recurrent dislocation as the main outcome, and a minimum 2-year follow-up. The cumulative odds ratio of prognostic factors was calculated where appropriate. Bias was assessed in each study using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool.

RESULTS

The reported rate of recurrence ranged from 19% to 88% (pooled overall = 21%; pooled Level I only = 47%). The pooled time to recurrence was 10.8 months (standard deviation 0.42). Male sex (n = 6 studies) conferred a 2.68 (1.66-4.31; P < .001) and patient age <20 years (n = 4 studies) conferred a 12.76 (5.77-28.2; P < .001; vs >20 years) increased odds of recurrence. An associated greater tuberosity fracture (n = 7 studies) decreased the odds of recurrence by 3.8 times (2.94-5.00; P < .001). The quality of evidence was moderate for age, low for sex, and very low for all other prognostic variables.

CONCLUSIONS

The pooled rate of recurrence after primary anterior shoulder instability was found to be 21% among moderate- to high-quality prognostic studies. Male sex and younger age predicted a significantly higher risk of recurrent instability (approaching 80%), whereas concurrent fracture of the greater tuberosity significantly decreased the risk of subsequent recurrent dislocation. However, considering the quality of available evidence for these predictors, there remains a clear need for further high-quality prospective studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, systematic review of Level I and II prognostic studies.

Immobilization in External Rotation Versus Internal Rotation After Primary Anterior Shoulder Dislocation: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

The recurrence rate after primary anterior shoulder dislocation is high, especially in young, active individuals. Recent studies have suggested external rotation immobilization as a method to reduce the rate of recurrent shoulder dislocation in comparison to traditional sling immobilization.

PURPOSE

To assess and summarize evidence from randomized controlled trials on the effect of internal rotation versus external rotation immobilization on the rate of recurrence after primary anterior shoulder dislocation.

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and abstracts from recent proceedings were searched for eligible studies. Two reviewers selected studies for inclusion, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data.

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials (632 patients) were included in this review. Demographic and prognostic variables measured at baseline were similar in the pooled groups. The average age was 30.1 years in the pooled external rotation group and 30.3 years in the pooled internal rotation group. Two studies found that external rotation immobilization reduced the rate of recurrence after initial anterior shoulder dislocation compared with conventional internal rotation immobilization, whereas 4 studies failed to find a significant difference between the 2 groups. This meta-analysis suggested no overall significant difference in the rate of recurrence among patients treated with internal rotation versus external rotation immobilization (risk ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.42-1.14; P = .15). There was no significant difference in the rate of compliance between internal and external rotation immobilization (P = .43). The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index scores were pooled across 3 studies, and there was no significant difference between the 2 groups (P = .54).

CONCLUSION

Immobilization in external rotation is not significantly more effective in reducing the recurrence rate after primary anterior shoulder dislocation than immobilization in internal rotation. Additionally, this review suggests that there is minimal difference in patients' perceptions of their health-related quality of life after immobilization in internal versus external rotation.

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.

Are there differences between stemless and conventional stemmed shoulder prostheses in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis?

Background

Conventional stemmed anatomical shoulder prostheses are widely used in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis. The stemless shoulder prosthesis, in contrast, is a new concept, and fewer outcome studies are available. Therefore, the purpose of the study was to investigate the early functional outcome and postoperative proprioception of a stemless prosthesis in comparison with a standard stemmed anatomic shoulder prosthesis.

Methods

Twelve patients (mean age 68.3 years [SD ± 5.4]; 5 female, 7 male) with primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis of the shoulder were enrolled, who underwent total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) with a stemless total shoulder prosthesis, Total Evolution Shoulder System (TESS®; Biomed, France). The control group consisted of twelve (age and gender matched) patients (mean age 67.8 years; [SD ± 7.1]; 9 female, 3 male), getting a TSA with a standard anatomic stemmed prosthesis, Aequalis® Shoulder (Tournier, Lyon, France). Patients were examined the day before and six months after surgery. The pre- and postoperative Constant Score (CS) was evaluated and proprioception was measured in a 3D video motion analysis study using an active angle-reproduction (AAR) test.

Results

Comparing the postoperative CS, there was no significant difference between the groups treated with the TESS® prosthesis (48.0 ± 13.8 points) and the Aequalis® prosthesis (49.3 ± 8.6 points; p = 0.792). There was no significant difference in postoperative proprioception between the TESS® group (7.2° [SD ± 2.8]) and the Aequalis® group(8.7° [SD ± 2.7]; p = 0.196), either. Comparison of in the results of CS and AAR test pre- and postoperatively showed no significant differences between the groups.

Discussion

In patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis, treated with TSA, the functional and the proprioceptive outcome is comparable between a stemless and a standard stemmed anatomic shoulder prosthesis at early followup.

Conclusion

Further follow-up is necessary regarding the long-term performance of this prosthesis.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials DRKS 00007528. Registered 17 November 2014

Arm Abduction Provides a Better Reduction of the Bankart Lesion During Immobilization in External Rotation After an Initial Shoulder Dislocation

BACKGROUND

Shoulder dislocation often recurs, especially in the younger population. Immobilization in external rotation, in which a Bankart lesion is displaced in the anterior, medial, and inferior directions, was introduced as a new method of nonoperative treatment, but its clinical efficiency is controversial. In terms of reducing the lesion, it is reasonable to incorporate not only external rotation, which makes the anterior soft tissues tight to push the lesion posteriorly and laterally, but also abduction, which makes the inferior soft tissues tight to push the lesion superiorly.

HYPOTHESIS

Abducting the arm during immobilization in external rotation will improve the reduction of a Bankart lesion.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

There were 37 patients with initial shoulder dislocation enrolled in this study. After reduction, MRI was taken in 4 positions of the shoulder: adduction and internal rotation (Add-IR), adduction and external rotation (Add-ER), 30° of abduction and 30° of external rotation (Abd-30ER), and 30° of abduction and 60° of external rotation (Abd-60ER). On radial slices, the separation, displacement of the labrum, and opening angle of the capsule were measured.

RESULTS

Add-ER improved the reduction of the anterior labrum but not the inferior labrum when compared with Add-IR. Both Abd-30ER and Abd-60ER improved the reduction of the inferior labrum as compared with Add-IR. Furthermore, Abd-60ER improved the reduction more than Add-ER.

CONCLUSION

Among the 4 positions tested, Abd-60ER is the best position in terms of reducing the Bankart lesion.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Abducting the shoulder during immobilization in external rotation is demonstrated to improve the reduction of the Bankart lesion. Therefore, this position is expected to reduce the recurrence rate after initial dislocation of the shoulder. Future clinical trials are necessary.

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.