Which labral lesion can be best reduced with external rotation of the shoulder after a first-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation?

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.

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.

Editorial Commentary: Are Shoulder Glenoid Labral Teardrop Lesions Reasons for Surgeons to Cry?

In the world of glenoid labral chondral injuries, perhaps the most recognizable by magnetic resonance imaging is the "teardrop" version, and the glenoid labral teardrop lesion is the glenoid chondral lesion most frequently associated with shoulder instability.

Eponymous terms in anterior shoulder stabilization surgery

Shoulder dislocation and its treatment are probably as old as time. Surgical treatment has gained acceptance recently, especially in recurrent cases. Within roughly the last 100years, numerous treatment strategies have been developed and questions elucidated regarding the entity of shoulder instability. Shoulder instability holds many eponymous terms. By means of literature and historical research, we present the biographical background of some common eponymous terms and the original publication on which those terms are based. We describe the Perthes lesion, Bankart lesion and repair, Hill-Sachs lesion, Bristow-Latarjet procedure and Eden-Hybbinette procedure. Shoulder instability has been recognized and treated for many centuries. Before the invention of X-rays and the ability to intervene surgically, empirical reduction and time were the only feasible treatment options. Understanding of the pathophysiology of this problem and its corresponding treatment has kept increasing since the 19th century. The originators involved still have their name attached to the different signs and procedures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

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.

Comparison of dynamics in 3D glenohumeral position between primary dislocated shoulders and contralateral healthy shoulders

BACKGROUNDS

After shoulder dislocation, kinematic changes in shoulder, including translation of the humeral head, ensue. There have been many attempts to measure these changes using motion measurement techniques, but in vivo three-dimensional (3D) glenohumeral changes have not been appreciated until now. The purpose of this study was to measure and analyze changes in glenohumeral translation in patients with shoulder dislocation and compare these changes with healthy shoulder.

METHODS

We included 20 subjects who had suffered shoulder dislocation for first time, and 3D models of their humerus and scapula were obtained using computed tomography and fluoroscopic images during scapular plane abduction and external rotation of shoulder with elbow flexed at 90° and arm abducted at 90°. We measured the superior/inferior (SI) and anterior/posterior (AP) translations for both shoulders.

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference between healthy and dislocated shoulders was detected in SI translation for scapular plane abduction with increasing elevation angles. In AP translation, the humeral head was located 2.29 mm more anteriorly in the dislocated shoulder than in the healthy shoulder. However, no statistically significant difference was seen. For internal to external rotation, the angle of the rotated arm had an effect on AP translation. However, no statistically significant difference was detected. In the apprehension test, there was no significant difference in the mean value of AP translation.

CONCLUSION

Compared with the contralateral healthy shoulder, changes in glenohumeral translation during in vivo movement after shoulder dislocation were found to be non-significant.

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 external rotation bracing for anterior shoulder dislocation actually result in reduction of the labrum? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

External rotation (ER) bracing has been shown to improve labral reduction in cadaveric studies, but this has not translated to universal improvement in re-dislocation rates in clinical series.

PURPOSE

To systematically review and critically appraise the literature that investigates how well the labrum is actually reduced by ER in patients who have had an anterior shoulder dislocation.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature using the online databases Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register. Studies were included if they reported on the difference in labral reduction after ER and internal rotation bracing in patients who had a traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation.

RESULTS

Of the 6 studies included, 5 assessed labral reduction on magnetic resonance imaging and 1 arthroscopically. Each study reported an overall improvement in labral reduction with ER, but anatomic reduction was not commonly achieved. This was despite the use of extreme positions that are unlikely to be well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

External rotation results in anatomic reduction of the labrum in only 35% of cases. We postulate that failure to reduce the labrum may be a contraindication to ER bracing and propose further study to determine whether acute MRI could be used to help identify patients in whom ER achieves labral reduction in a comfortable position. This approach also has the advantage of avoiding the significant inconvenience of ER bracing in those in whom the labrum does not reduce and are therefore theoretically less likely to benefit. However, it is a novel strategy with significant resource implications and therefore warrants further study.

First-time anterior shoulder dislocations: should they be arthroscopically stabilised?

The glenohumeral joint is inherently unstable because the large humeral head articulates with the small shadow glenoid fossa. Traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder is a relatively common athletic injury, and the high frequency of recurrent instability in young athletes after shoulder dislocation is discouraging to both the patient and the treating physician. Management of primary traumatic shoulder dislocation remains controversial. Traditionally, treatment involves initial immobilisation for 4-6 weeks, followed by functional rehabilitation. However, in view of the high recurrence rates associated with this traditional approach, there has been an escalating interest in determining whether immediate surgical intervention can lower the rate of recurrent shoulder dislocation, improving the patient's quality of life. This review article aims to provide an overview of the nature and pathogenesis of first-time primary anterior shoulder dislocations, the widely accepted management modalities, and the efficacy of primary surgical intervention in first-time primary anterior shoulder dislocations.

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

BACKGROUND

Acute anterior dislocation, which is the most common type of shoulder dislocation, usually results from an injury. Subsequently, the shoulder is less stable and is more susceptible to re-dislocation, especially in active young adults. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2006.

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 (September 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1946 to September 2013), EMBASE (1980 to Week 38, 2013), CINAHL (1982 to September 2013), PEDro (1929 to November 2012), OTseeker (inception to November 2012) and trial registries. We also searched conference proceedings and reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing various conservative interventions versus control (no or sham treatment) or other conservative interventions applied after closed reduction of traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Results of comparable groups of trials were pooled.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three randomised trials and one quasi-randomised trial, which involved 470 participants (371 male) with primary traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder reduced by various closed methods. Three studies evaluated mixed populations; in the fourth study, all participants were male and 80% were soldiers. All trials were at some risk of bias but to a differing extent. One was at high risk in all domains of the risk of bias tool, and one was at unclear or high risk in all domains; the other two trials were deemed to have predominantly low risk across all domains. Overall, reflecting both the risk of bias and the imprecision of findings, we judged the quality of evidence to be "very low" for all outcomes, meaning that we are very uncertain about the estimates of effect.The four trials evaluated the same comparison - immobilisation in external rotation versus internal rotation - and each of our three primary outcomes (re-dislocation, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for shoulder instability and resumption of activities) was reported by one or more of the trials, with two-year or longer follow-up. Pooling was possible for "re-dislocation" (three trials) and for aspects of "resumption of sport/activities at pre-injury level" (two trials).There was no evidence to show a difference between the two groups in re-dislocation at two-year or longer follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.06 favouring internal rotation, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.54; P value 0.77; 252 participants; three trials). In a low-risk population, with an illustrative baseline risk of 247 re-dislocations per 1000, these data equate to 15 more (95% CI 67 fewer to 133 more) re-dislocations per 1000 after immobilisation in external rotation. In a medium-risk population, with an illustrative baseline risk of 436 re-dislocations per 1000, the data equate to 26 more (95% CI 118 fewer to 235 more) re-dislocations after immobilisation in external rotation.Nor was evidence found to show a difference between the two groups in return to pre-injury levels of activity at two-year or longer follow-up (RR 1.25 favouring external rotation, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.2; P value 0.43; 278 participants; two trials). In a low-risk population, with an illustrative baseline risk of 204 participants per 1000 returning to pre-injury levels of activity, this equates to 41 more (95% CI 59 fewer to 245 more) participants per 1000 resuming activity after immobilisation in external rotation. In a high-risk population, with an illustrative baseline risk of 605 participants per 1000 returning to pre-injury levels of activity, this equates to 161 more (95% CI 76 fewer to 395 more) participants per 1000 resuming activity after immobilisation in external rotation.One trial reported that the difference between the two groups in Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index scores, analysed using non-parametric statistics, was "not significant (P = 0.32)". Of our secondary outcomes, pooling was possible for "any instability" (two trials) and for important adverse events (three events, two trials). However, adverse event data were collected only in an ad hoc way, and it is unclear whether identification and reporting of such events was comprehensive. No report addressed participant satisfaction or health-related quality of life outcome measures.There was no evidence confirming a difference between the two positions of immobilisation in any of the primary or secondary outcomes; for each outcome, the confidence intervals were wide, covering the possibility of substantial benefit for each intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Numerous conservative strategies may be adopted after closed reduction of a traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder, and many warrant investigation. However, our review reveals that evidence from randomised controlled trials is only available for a single approach: immobilisation in external rotation versus immobilisation in the traditional position of internal rotation. Moreover, this evidence is insufficient to demonstrate whether immobilisation in external rotation confers any benefit over immobilisation in internal rotation.We identified six unpublished trials and two ongoing trials that compare immobilisation in external versus internal rotation. Given this, the main priority for research on this question consists of the publication of completed trials, and the completion and publication of ongoing trials. Meanwhile, increased attention to other interventions is required. Sufficiently powered, good quality, well reported randomised controlled trials with long-term surveillance should be conducted to examine the optimum duration of immobilisation, whether immobilisation is necessary at all (in older age groups particularly), which rehabilitative interventions work best and the acceptability to participants of different care strategies.

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

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to systematically review and quantitatively synthesize the data on recurrence rates after shoulder immobilization in internal versus external rotation in first-time, traumatic shoulder dislocations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a systematic search of the keywords "(((external rotation) OR internal rotation) AND immobilization) AND shoulder" in the online databases PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and the Cochrane Library. Random-effects models were used to calculate the cumulatively pooled risk ratios (RRs) of recurrent shoulder dislocations. All analyses were also stratified by age.

RESULTS

We included 5 studies with a total of 471 patients (230 internal rotation and 241 external rotation) published between 2001 and 2011 in English. The pooled random-effects RR for recurrence of shoulder dislocations at all ages was 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-1.27; P = .278). The RR was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.38 to 1.29; P = .250) for patients aged 30 years or younger and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.32 to 1.88; P = .579) for those aged older than 30 years.

CONCLUSION

The current best evidence does not support a relative effectiveness of immobilization in external rotation compared with internal rotation to avoid recurrent shoulder dislocations in patients with traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations.

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

BACKGROUND

It is still not clear which method is the most efficient for treating primary traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation. Immobilization in external rotation has become increasingly discussed within the last 10 years. The aim of this study was to evaluate the rate of recurrence and clinical outcome of the immobilization in external rotation after primary traumatic anterior dislocation within a midterm period of 5 years. Additionally, a summary of literature is given according to the present knowledge of this issue.

METHODS

From May 2004 to May 2006, 28 patients with primary traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations were included in a prospective MRI-controlled study. After a follow-up of 5 years, the recurrence rate and clinical outcomes of the patients were evaluated using clinical scores (Constant and Murley score, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, Rowe score).

RESULTS

After 5 years, 26 patients (93 %; males, n = 25; female, n = 1; mean age, 29.3 years) were interviewed concerning re-dislocations. In the meantime, four patients (15 %) experienced a re-dislocation (ø 12.2 months) after the end of the immobilization. Overall, 21 patients (75 %) were included in a clinical follow-up (CM score: ø 92.8 points; Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index: ø 87 %; Rowe score (in 17 patients): ø 94.2 points). Upon clinical examination, unidirectional anterior instability was found in one patient, which corresponds to an overall instability rate of 19 % within the examined patient population including the re-dislocations.

CONCLUSIONS

Immobilization in external rotation shows satisfactory results after 5 years in regard to recurrence and instability rates and clinical outcomes. The data show that with immobilization in external rotation, re-dislocations occur within the first 2 years.

Arthroscopic repair for combined Bankart and superior labral anterior posterior lesions: a comparative study between primary and recurrent anterior dislocation in the shoulder

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between a primary dislocation group (group P) and a recurrent dislocation group (group R) with combined lesion of Bankart and type II SLAP lesions (type V SLAP lesion) and to evaluate incidence of type V SLAP lesion. In addition, the authors evaluated clinical outcomes of these patients by dividing two groups according to the sequence for Bankart and SLAP lesion suture.

METHODS

From May 2000 to May 2005, 310 patients who gave informed consent, underwent the diagnostic arthroscopy and magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA). One hundred and ten patients met the following criteria: (1) post-traumatic primary or recurrent anterior shoulder instability, (2) a normal contralateral shoulder, (3) a type V SLAP lesion, and (4) minimum follow-up of two years. Group P included 42 patients, and group R, 68 patients. Among all patients, 58 patients who had Bankart lesions sutured first were included in group B, and 52 who had their SLAP lesions sutured beforehand, group S. Visual analogue scale, range of motion, Rowe and Constant score were used to compare results between group P and group R, also group B and group S.

RESULTS

The incidence rates of type V SLAP lesion were 42.8% in group P and 32.0% in group R. The overall treatment results in our study were good. Even if the difference between the two groups was statistically insignificant, group P showed greater recovery of range of motion than group R in external rotation. No significant difference was found between the two different operative methods according to suture sequence.

CONCLUSION

The incidence rates of type V SLAP lesion were 42.8% in the primary dislocation group and 32.0% in the recurrent dislocation group. The overall treatment results in our study were good. Although there was no statistical significance in surgical time between the two groups, when both SLAP and Bankart lesions are present, the Bankart lesion must be sutured first to reduce surgical time.

Is MRI useful to assess labral reduction following acute anterior shoulder dislocation?

INTRODUCTION

Better knowledge of the anatomical lesions following primary anterior dislocation of the shoulder could help to resolve the issue of the recommended position of immobilization. The aim of this study was to describe such early lesions and to evaluate labral reducibility in both external and internal rotation of the arm.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Fifteen shoulders were investigated by MRI without intra-articular injection. The 15 patients (14 men and one woman) had a mean age of 28 years (range: 17-42 years). Labral lesions were classified on a system based on Gleyze and Habermeyer's endoscopic assessment and reducibility was assessed on Itoi's criteria.

RESULTS

Constant hemarthrosis allowed an arthrogram type effect. The Hill-Sachs lesion was small in five cases, medium in eight cases and large in two. There were seven labral lesions of type I, seven of type II and one of type III. External rotation (mean: 30.6 degrees; range: 15 degrees-65 degrees), reduced the labrum in six cases (40%).

DISCUSSION

The present study failed to confirm the constant reduction of the labrum reported by Itoi, perhaps because external rotation was less than that obtained in his study (m=52 degrees; range: 35 degrees-81 degrees). Reduction was partly due to posterior migration of the hemarthrosis obtained by external rotation.

CONCLUSION

MRI assessment of labral reducibility after primary anterior shoulder dislocation may be considered for patients at high risk of recurrence, in order to decide the ideal position of immobilization.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV. Retrospective diagnostic study.

Conservative treatment of first-time shoulder dislocation with the arm in external rotation

Nonoperative treatment of traumatic first-time shoulder dislocation has remained the same for a long time. The recurrence rate of nonoperative treatment is unacceptably high, especially in young and active patients. In an earlier study, we demonstrated the superiority of immobilization in external rotation over conventional treatment. Arthroscopic stabilization is being increasingly recommended after a first-time dislocation; however, surgical stabilization after a first-time dislocation still remains controversial. In this paper, we introduce a basic study that provides evidence for the development of immobilization in external rotation, recent clinical outcomes, and future perspective. Furthermore, how to choose the treatment options for first-time dislocations is discussed.

Do Bankart lesions heal better in shoulders immobilized in external rotation?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Immobilization in external rotation (ER) for shoulder dislocation has been reported to improve the coaptation of Bankart lesions to the glenoid. We compared the position of the labrum in patients treated with immobilization in ER or internal rotation (IR). A secondary aim was to evaluate the rate of Bankart lesions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

55 patients with primary anterior shoulder dislocation, aged between 16 and 40 years, were randomized to immobilization in ER or IR. Computer tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were performed shortly after the injury. After the immobilization, MRI arthrography was performed. We evaluated the rate of Bankart lesions and measured the separation and displacement of the labrum as well as the length of the detached part of the capsule on the glenoid neck.

RESULTS

Immobilization in ER reduced the number of Bankart lesions (OR = 3.8, 95% CI: 1.1 -13; p = 0.04). Separation decreased to a larger extent in the ER group than in the IR group (mean difference 0.6 mm, 95% CI: 0.1 - 1.1, p = 0.03). Displacement of the labrum and the detached part of the capsule showed no significant differences between the groups.

INTERPRETATION

Immobilization in ER results in improved coaptation of the labrum after primary traumatic shoulder dislocation.

Bracing in external rotation for traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder

We undertook a prospective study in 51 male patients aged between 17 and 27 years to ascertain whether immobilisation after primary traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder in external rotation was more effective than immobilisation in internal rotation in preventing recurrent dislocation in a physically active population. Of the 51 patients, 24 were randomised to be treated by a traditional brace in internal rotation and 27 were immobilised in external rotation of 15 degrees to 20 degrees. After immobilisation, the patients undertook a standard regime of physiotherapy and were then assessed clinically for evidence of instability. When reviewed at a mean of 33.4 months (24 to 48) ten from the external rotation group (37%) and ten from the internal rotation group (41.7%) had sustained a further dislocation. There was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.74) between the groups. Our findings show that external rotation bracing may not be as effective as previously reported in preventing recurrent anterior dislocation of the shoulder.