Shoulder Stabilization Versus Immobilization for First-Time Anterior Shoulder Dislocation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Level 1 Randomized Controlled Trials

Arthroscopic Labral Reconstruction With a Modified Inferior Capsular Shift Allows Return to Sport and Excellent Outcomes in Contact and Noncontact Athletes With Anterior Shoulder Instability at Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up

PURPOSE

To compare return to sport, functional outcomes, recurrence of instability, and osteoarthritis (OA) between collision/contact and limited/noncontact athletes following arthroscopic labral reconstruction with a modified inferior capsular shift for anterior shoulder instability.

METHODS

Athletes underwent an arthroscopic labral reconstruction with a modified inferior capsular shift by the senior author between 1999 and 2018. Inclusion criteria were labral stripping from 12 (just beyond the biceps anchor) to 6 o'clock, less than 20% glenoid bone loss, active sports participation, and no previous surgery. Athletes were divided into collision/contact and limited/noncontact groups. Outcome measures, physical examination, and radiographic evaluation were collected at a minimum 5-year follow-up. Reoperations or any subjective laxity were considered failures. Radiographs were analyzed for OA using the Samilson-Prieto Radiological Classification.

RESULTS

Ninety-two patients underwent arthroscopic labral reconstruction with a modified inferior capsular shift. Sixty-four met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-eight (age = 26.0 ± 8.0 years) participated in at least 1 collision/contact sport, and 26 (age = 38.0 ± 9.0 years) participated in limited/noncontact sports. Two (5%) collision/contact and 3 (12%) limited/noncontact athletes had traumatic reinjury requiring revision surgery. Of the remaining athletes (59/64), minimum 5-year follow-up was obtained on 54 (92%), with a mean follow-up of 12 ± 4 years (range 5-23 years). All athletes returned to their original sport at the same level. There was no significant difference between collision/contact and limited/noncontact athletes in timing of return to sports (5.2 ± 1.9 and 6.0 ± 3.1 months, respectively; P = .389). There were no significant differences between groups on any outcomes scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic labral reconstruction with a modified inferior capsular shift addressed anterior instability with return to sport for both collision/contact and limited/noncontact athletes with excellent functional and clinical outcomes, full shoulder range of motion, and a low prevalence of advanced OA at minimum 5-year follow-up. This modified technique resulted in a low failure rate in both limited/noncontact and collision/contact athletes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective case control study.

Outcomes of total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with prior anterior shoulder instability: minimum 5-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

Patients with a history of anterior shoulder instability (ASI) commonly progress to glenohumeral arthritis or even dislocation arthropathy and often require total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). The purposes of this study were to (1) report patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after TSA in patients with a history of ASI, (2) compare TSA outcomes of patients whose ASI was managed operatively vs. nonoperatively, and (3) report PROs of TSA in patients who previously underwent arthroscopic vs. open ASI management.

METHODS

Patients were included if they had a history of ASI and had undergone TSA ≥5 years earlier, performed by a single surgeon, between October 2005 and January 2017. The exclusion criteria included prior rotator cuff repair, hemiarthroplasty, or glenohumeral joint infection before the index TSA procedure. Patients were separated into 2 groups: those whose ASI was previously operatively managed and those whose ASI was treated nonoperatively. This was a retrospective review of prospective collected data. Data collected was demographic, surgical and subjective. The PROs used were the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation score, QuickDASH (Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) score, and 12-item Short Form physical component score. Failure was defined as revision TSA surgery, conversion to reverse TSA, or prosthetic joint infection. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed.

RESULTS

This study included 36 patients (27 men and 9 women) with a mean age of 56.4 years (range, 18.8-72.2 years). Patients in the operative ASI group were younger than those in the nonoperative ASI group (50.6 years vs. 64.0 years, P < .001). Operative ASI patients underwent 10 open and 11 arthroscopic anterior stabilization surgical procedures prior to TSA (mean, 2 procedures; range, 1-4 procedures). TSA failure occurred in 6 of 21 patients with operative ASI (28.6%), whereas no failures occurred in the nonoperative ASI group (P = .03). Follow-up was obtained in 28 of 30 eligible patients (93%) at an average of 7.45 years (range, 5.0-13.6 years). In the collective cohort, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation score, QuickDASH (Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) score, and 12-item Short Form physical component score significantly improved, with no differences in the postoperative PROs between the 2 groups. We found no significant differences when comparing PROs between prior open and prior arthroscopic ASI procedures or when comparing the number of prior ASI procedures. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated a 79% 5-year survivorship rate in patients with prior ASI surgery and a 100% survivorship rate in nonoperatively managed ASI patients (P = .030).

CONCLUSION

At mid-term follow-up, patients with a history of ASI undergoing TSA can expect continued improvement in function compared with preoperative values. However, TSA survivorship is decreased in patients with a history of ASI surgery compared with those without prior surgery.

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.

The Continuous Fragility Index of Statistically Significant Findings in Randomized Controlled Trials That Compare Interventions for Anterior Shoulder Instability

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based care relies on robust research. The fragility index (FI) is used to assess the robustness of statistically significant findings in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). While the traditional FI is limited to dichotomous outcomes, a novel tool, the continuous fragility index (CFI), allows for the assessment of the robustness of continuous outcomes.

PURPOSE

To calculate the CFI of statistically significant continuous outcomes in RCTs evaluating interventions for managing anterior shoulder instability (ASI).

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

A search was conducted across the MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases for RCTs assessing management strategies for ASI from inception to October 6, 2022. Studies that reported a statistically significant difference between study groups in ≥1 continuous outcome were included. The CFI was calculated and applied to all available RCTs reporting interventions for ASI. Multivariable linear regression was performed between the CFI and various study characteristics as predictors.

RESULTS

There were 27 RCTs, with a total of 1846 shoulders, included. The median sample size was 61 shoulders (IQR, 43). The median CFI across 27 RCTs was 8.2 (IQR, 17.2; 95% CI, 3.6-15.4). The median CFI was 7.9 (IQR, 21; 95% CI, 1-22) for 11 studies comparing surgical methods, 22.6 (IQR, 16; 95% CI, 8.2-30.4) for 6 studies comparing nonsurgical reduction interventions, 2.8 for 3 studies comparing immobilization methods, and 2.4 for 3 studies comparing surgical versus nonsurgical interventions. Significantly, 22 of 57 included outcomes (38.6%) from studies with completed follow-up data had a loss to follow-up exceeding their CFI. Multivariable regression demonstrated that there was a statistically significant positive correlation between a trial's sample size and the CFI of its outcomes (r = 0.23 [95% CI, 0.13-0.33]; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

More than a third of continuous outcomes in ASI trials had a CFI less than the reported loss to follow-up. This carries the significant risk of reversing trial findings and should be considered when evaluating available RCT data. We recommend including the FI, CFI, and loss to follow-up in the abstracts of future RCTs.

Editorial Commentary: Immediate Surgical Stabilization Following a First-Time Traumatic Anterior Shoulder Dislocation Is Still the Best Evidence-Based Approach

Traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations are unfortunately common. The initial dislocation is enough to cause permanent anatomic and biomechanical alterations to the glenohumeral joint, which increases the likelihood of further events. When a patient crosses into the multiple dislocator category, further soft-tissue and bony injury occurs. This is almost certainly the reason that the number of preoperative dislocations significantly diminishes the success of an arthroscopic stabilization and increases the need for a more aggressive approach that may carry greater risks of complications. When it comes to recurrent instability, there remains very little doubt regarding the appropriate treatment for a first-time traumatic dislocation: immediate surgical stabilization! Assuming no significant glenoid or humeral bone loss, arthroscopic stabilization remains an effective surgery with a high-benefit, low-risk profile, especially when combined with a remplissage in high-risk circumstances. At least 4 randomized controlled trials support immediate versus nonoperative management for every outcome measured: recurrence, return to sport, patient-reported outcomes, and sustained event-free survival, especially pronounced at 2 years. The decision to recommend surgery, is of course, not always straightforward, necessitating an informed discussion with the patient and the family, especially when other outcomes such as return to play are deemed equally relevant and can be successfully achieved with nonoperative management. Nonetheless, more than any other outcome measure, is there a more important outcome than recurrence regarding long-term health implications? Lastly, can we do better with study designs and outcome measures to better understand risk factors to identify patients better suited for surgery after a first-time event than others? Absolutely. But until then, when up to 60% can sustain a recurrent dislocation in this population, and up to 90% in high-risk individuals, the odds are not in my favor with nonoperative treatment. Despite potential limitations in our current literature, immediate surgery following a first-time dislocation is still the best evidence-based approach.

Increased Failure Rates After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair After Second Dislocation Compared to Primary Dislocation With Comparable Clinical Outcomes

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare rates of recurrent dislocation and postsurgical outcomes in patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability immediately after a first-time traumatic anterior dislocation versus patients who sustained a second dislocation event after initial nonoperative management.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed of patients undergoing primary arthroscopic stabilization for anterior shoulder instability without concomitant procedures and minimum 2-year clinical follow-up. Primary outcome was documentation of a recurrent shoulder dislocation. Secondary clinical outcomes included range of motion, Visual Analog Scale (VAS), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Score (ASES), and Shoulder Activity Scale (SAS).

RESULTS

Seventy-seven patients (mean age 21.3 years ± 7.3 years) met inclusion criteria. Sixty-three shoulders underwent surgical stabilization after a single shoulder dislocation, and 14 underwent surgery after 2 dislocations. Average follow-up was 35.9 months. The rate of recurrent dislocation was significantly higher in the 2-dislocation group compared to single dislocations (42.8% vs 14.2%, P = .03). No significant difference was present in range of motion, VAS, ASES, and SAS scores. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was 1.4 for VAS and 1.8 for SAS scores. The MCID was met or exceeded in the primary dislocation group in 31/38 (81.6%) patients for VAS, 23/31 (74.1%) for ASES, and 24/31 for SES (77.4%) scores. For the second dislocation cohort, MCID was met or exceeded in 7/9 (77.8%) for VAS, 4/7 (57.1%) for ASES, and 5/7 for SES (71.4%) scores.

CONCLUSION

Immediate arthroscopic surgical stabilization after a first-time anterior shoulder dislocation significantly decreases the risk of recurrent dislocation in comparison to those who undergo surgery after 2 dislocation events, with comparable clinical outcome scores. These findings suggest that patients who return to activities after a primary anterior shoulder dislocation and sustain just 1 additional dislocation event are at increased risk of a failing arthroscopic repair.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective comparative study; Level of evidence, 3.

Knowledge and appropriateness of care of family physicians and physiotherapists in the management of shoulder pain: a survey study in the province of Quebec, Canada

BACKGROUND

Shoulder pain is difficult to diagnose and treat with half of those affected still symptomatic six months after initial consultation. This may be explained by primary care management not conforming to evidence-based practice. This survey evaluated physiotherapists (PTs) and family physicians' (FPs) knowledge and appropriateness of care in shoulder pain management.

METHODS

A survey sent to PTs and FPs in the province of Quebec, Canada presented four clinical vignettes with cases of rotator cuff (RC) tendinopathy, acute full-thickness RC tear, adhesive capsulitis and traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability. Respondents indicated diagnosis, indications for imaging, specialists' referrals, and choice of treatments. Answers were compared to recommendations from clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Participants' responses were compared between types of providers with Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

Respondents (PTs = 175, FPs = 76) were mostly women with less than ten years of experience. More than 80% of PTs and 84% of FPs correctly diagnosed cases presented. Despite this practice not being recommended, more FPs than PTs recommended an imaging test in the initial management of RC tendinopathy (30% compared to 13%, p = 0.001) and adhesive capsulitis (51% compared to 22%, p = 0.02). For full-thickness RC tear and shoulder instability, up to 72% of FPs and 67% of PTs did not refer to a specialist for a surgical opinion, although recommended by CPGs. For RC tendinopathy, 26% of FPs and 2% of PTs (p < 0.001) would have prescribed a corticosteroid infiltration, which is not recommended in the initial management of this disorder. For adhesive capsulitis, significantly more FPs (76%) than PTs (62%) (p < 0.001) suggested an intra-articular corticosteroid infiltration, as recommended by CPGs. For all presented vignettes, up to 95% of family physicians adequately indicated they would refer patients for physiotherapy. In prioritizing rehabilitation interventions, up to 42% of PTs did not consider active exercises as a priority and up to 65% selected passive modalities that are not recommended for all shoulder pain vignettes.

CONCLUSIONS

Most FPs and PTs were able to make adequate diagnoses and select appropriate treatments for shoulder pain, but practices opposed to evidence-based recommendations were chosen by several respondents. Further training of FPs and PTs may be needed to optimize primary care management of different shoulder disorders.

Shoulder Surgery Postoperative Immobilization: An International Survey of Shoulder Surgeons

BACKGROUND

There is currently no consensus on immobilization protocols following shoulder surgery. The aim of this study was to establish patterns and types of sling use for various surgical procedures in the United States (US) and Europe, and to identify factors associated with the variations.

METHODS

An online survey was sent to all members of the American Shoulder and Elbow Society (ASES) and European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and Elbow (ESSSE). The survey gathered member data, including practice location and years in practice. It also obtained preferences for the type and duration of sling use after the following surgical procedures: arthroscopic Bankart repair, Latarjet, arthroscopic superior/posterosuperior rotator cuff repair (ARCR) of tears <3 cm and >3 cm, anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse TSA (rTSA), and isolated biceps tenodesis (BT). Relationships between physician location and sling type for each procedure were analyzed using Fisher's exact tests and post-hoc tests using Bonferroni-adjusted p-values. Relationships looking at years in practice and sling duration preferred were analyzed using Spearman's correlation tests.

RESULTS

In total, 499 surgeons with a median of 15 years of experience (IQR = 9-25) responded, with 54.7% from the US and 45.3% from Europe. US respondents reported higher abduction pillow sling use than European respondents for the following: Bankart repair (62% vs. 15%, p < 0.0001), Latarjet (53% vs. 12%, p < 0.001), ARCR < 3 cm (80% vs. 42%, p < 0.001) and >3 cm (84% vs. 61%, p < 0.001), aTSA (50% vs. 21%, p < 0.001) and rTSA with subscapularis repair (61% vs. 22%, p < 0.001) and without subscapularis repair (57% vs. 17%, p < 0.001), and isolated BT (18% vs. 7%, p = 0.006). European respondents reported higher simple sling use than US respondents for the following: Bankart repair (74% vs. 31%, p < 0.001), Latarjet (78% vs. 44%, p < 0.001), ARCR < 3 cm (50% vs. 17%, p < 0.001) and >3 cm (34% vs. 13%, p < 0.001), and aTSA (69% vs. 41%, p < 0.001) and rTSA with subscapularis repair (70% vs. 35%, p < 0.001) and without subscapularis repair (73% vs. 39%, p < 0.001). Increasing years of experience demonstrated a negative correlation with the duration of sling use after Bankart repair (r = -0.20, p < 0.001), Latarjet (r = -0.25, p < 0.001), ARCR < 3 cm (r = -0.14, p = 0.014) and >3 cm (r = -0.20, p < 0.002), and aTSA (r = -0.37, p < 0.001), and rTSA with subscapularis repair (r = -0.10, p = 0.049) and without subscapularis repair (r = -0.19, p = 0.022. Thus, the more experienced surgeons tended to recommend shorter durations of post-operative sling use. US surgeons reported longer post-operative sling durations for Bankart repair (4.8 vs. 4.1 weeks, p < 0.001), Latarjet (4.6 vs. 3.6 weeks, p < 0.001), ARCR < 3 cm (5.2 vs. 4.5 weeks p < 0.001) and >3 cm (5.9 vs. 5.1 weeks, p < 0.001), aTSA (4.9 vs. 4.3 weeks, p < 0.001), rTSR without subscapularis repair (4.0 vs. 3.6 weeks, p = 0.031), and isolated BT (3.7 vs. 3.3 weeks, p = 0.012) than Europe respondents. No significant differences between regions within the US and Europe were demonstrated.

CONCLUSIONS

There is considerable variation in the immobilization advocated by surgeons, with geographic location and years of clinical experience influencing patterns of sling use. Future work is required to establish the most clinically beneficial protocols for immobilization following shoulder surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

First-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation: current concepts

The management of first-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations has been a topic of extensive study yet remains controversial. Development of a treatment plan requires an understanding of patient-specific considerations, including demographics, functional demands, and extent of pathology. Each of these can influence rates of recurrence and return to activity. The purpose of this review is to provide a framework for decision-making following a first-time anterior shoulder dislocation, with particular focus on the high-risk young and athletic population. A summary of surgical treatment options and their outcomes is outlined, along with future biomechanical and clinical perspectives.

Bony reconstruction after failed labral repair is associated with higher recurrence rates compared to primary bony reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 1319 shoulders in studies with a minimum of 2-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty with regard to the optimal revision procedure after failed labral repair for anterior shoulder instability. An overview of outcomes of these procedures with quantitative analysis is not available in literature. The aim of this review is (1) to compare recurrence rates after revision labral repair (RLR) and revision bony reconstruction (RBR), both following failed labral repair. In addition, (2) recurrence rates after RBR following failed labral repair and primary bony reconstruction (PBR) are compared to determine if a previous failed labral repair influences the outcomes of the bony reconstruction.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies with a minimum follow-up of 2 years and reporting recurrence rates of (1) RBR following failed labral repair and PBR and/or (2) RLR following failed labral repair and RBR following failed labral repair were identified by searching PubMed, Embase/Ovid, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews/Wiley, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials/Wiley, and Web of Science/Clarivate Analytics.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria and comprised 1319 shoulders. Meta-analyses showed that RBR has a significantly higher recurrence rate than PBR (risk ratio [RR] 0.51, P < .008) but found no significant difference in the recurrence rates for RLR and RBR (RR 1.40, P < .49). Also, no significant differences were found between PBR and RBR in return to sport (RR 1.07, P < .41), revision surgery (RR 0.8, P < .44), and complications (RR 0.84, P < .53). Lastly, no significant differences between RLR and RBR for revision surgery (RR 3.33, P < .19) were found.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this meta-analyses show that (1) RBR does not demonstrate a significant difference in recurrence rates compared with RLR and that (2) RBR has a significantly higher recurrence rate than PBR.