Intraarticular lidocaine versus intravenous analgesic for reduction of acute anterior shoulder dislocations. A prospective randomized study

Is Ultrasound-guided or Landmark-guided Intra-articular Lidocaine Injection More Effective for Pain Control in Anterior Shoulder Dislocation Reduction? A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Effective pain control during reduction of shoulder dislocation is essential for patient comfort. However, there is a lack of comprehensive research comparing the efficacy of different pain management techniques, specifically landmark-guided and ultrasound-guided intra-articular analgesic injections.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

Among patients undergoing closed reduction of a shoulder dislocation, were there differences between an intra-articular shoulder injection placed using anatomic landmarks and an ultrasound-guided intra-articular injection in terms of (1) pain before versus after the injection and pain before injection versus after the reduction, or (2) length of stay in the emergency department and complications of the procedure?

METHODS

Between August 2021 and March 2023, 28 patients with anterior shoulder dislocation were treated at the emergency department of a tertiary referral care center. They were randomly assigned to either the landmark-guided or ultrasound-guided intra-articular lidocaine injection group. Differences in pain levels between preinjection and postinjection, preinjection and postreduction, length of hospital stay, and complications were assessed and compared between the two groups. Patients were followed for 2 weeks.

RESULTS

There were no between-group differences in terms of age, gender, baseline pain score, and any other relevant factors. There were no differences between the groups in terms of pain reduction between preinjection and postinjection (landmark-guided: ΔVAS 2.8 ± 1.1, ultrasound-guided: ΔVAS 2.9 ± 1.0, mean difference -0.14 [95% confidence interval -0.97 to 0.68]; p = 0.72) or between preinjection and postreduction (landmark-guided: ΔVAS 6.6 ± 2.1, ultrasound-guided: ΔVAS 5.8 ± 1.8, mean difference 0.79 [95% CI -0.74 to 2.31]; p = 0.30). There were no differences in length of stay in the emergency department (landmark-guided: 162 ± 38 minutes, ultrasound-guided: 184 ± 73 minutes, mean difference 22 minutes [95% CI -67 to 24]; p = 0.33), and no complications were reported in either group during the 2-week follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

The results of the landmark-guided technique were not different from those of ultrasound-guided injection in terms of lower pain levels, length of stay, and complications. These findings provide valuable guidance for orthopaedic surgeons, enabling them to make informed decisions based on their expertise and available resources.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, therapeutic study.

Comparative efficacy of sedation or analgesia methods for reduction of anterior shoulder dislocation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous sedation (IVS), intraarticular anesthetic injection (IAA), and peripheral nerve block (PNB) as sedation or analgesia methods for the reduction of anterior shoulder dislocation.

METHODS

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different sedation or analgesia methods for anterior shoulder dislocation reduction. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar databases were searched in October 2021. We conducted a random-effects NMA within a frequentist framework. We evaluated the confidence in each outcome using the CINeMA tool.

RESULTS

Sixteen RCTs (957 patients) were included. Regarding the primary outcomes, the three methods might result in little to no difference in the immediate success rate of reduction and patient satisfaction. The IAA method had a shorter emergency department length of stay than that of the IVS method (mean difference [MD] -107.88 min, 95% confidence interval [CI] -202.58 to -13.18). In the secondary outcomes, the IAA method had a lower pain score than that of the PNB method (standardized MD -1.83, 95% CI -3.64 to -0.02). The IAA and PNB methods might require a longer time for reduction than that of the IVS method (MD 5.3 min, 95% CI 2.4 to 10.36; MD 15.25, 95% CI 5.49 to 25.01). The three methods might result in little to no difference in the number of reduction attempts and total success rate of reduction. However, the confidence ratings for all treatment comparisons were very low. IAA and PNB had no adverse respiratory events.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our NMA indicated that three sedation or analgesia methods (IVS, IAA, and PNB) might result in little to no difference in the success rate of reduction and patient satisfaction. IAA and PNB had no adverse respiratory events.

Intra-articular lidocaine versus intravenous sedation for closed reduction of acute anterior shoulder dislocation in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Anterior shoulder dislocations are commonly treated in the emergency department (ED). Analgesia for reduction is provided by intra-articular lidocaine (IAL) injection or intravenous sedation (IV sedation). The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare IAL versus IV sedation for closed reduction of acute anterior shoulder dislocation in the ED.

METHODS

Electronic searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE (1946-September 2021) were completed and reference lists were hand-searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IAL and IV sedation for reduction of acute anterior shoulder dislocations among patients ≥ 15 years old in the ED were included. Outcomes of interest included a successful reduction, adverse events, ED length of stay, pain scores, procedure time, ease of reduction, patient satisfaction, and cost. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts, assessed study quality and extracted data. Data were pooled using random-effects models and reported as mean differences and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

12 RCTs were included with a total of 630 patients (IAL = 327; IV sedation = 303). There was no difference in reduction success between IAL and IV sedation (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.86-1.01, I² = 69%), significantly lower adverse events with IAL (RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.07-0.33, I² = 0%), shorter ED length of stay with IAL (mean difference - 1.48; 95% CI - 2.48 to - 0.47, I² = 93%), no difference in pain scores post-analgesia and no difference in ease of reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

Intra-articular lidocaine may have similar effectiveness as IV sedation in the successful reduction of anterior shoulder dislocations in the ED with fewer adverse events, shorter ED length of stay, and no difference in pain scores or ease of reduction. Intra-articular lidocaine may be an effective alternative to IV sedation for reducing anterior shoulder dislocations, particularly when IV sedation is contraindicated or not feasible.

Accuracy of Landmark-guided Glenohumeral Joint Injections as Assessed by Ultrasound in Anterior Shoulder Dislocations

Introduction

To determine the accuracy of landmark-guided shoulder joint injections (LGI) with point-of-care ultrasound for patients with anterior shoulder dislocations.

Methods

Patients with anterior shoulder dislocations who underwent LGI were enrolled at our tertiary-care and trauma center. LGI attempts were recorded by an ultrasound fellowship-trained ED physician who determined if they were placed successfully. Pain and satisfaction scores were recorded.

Results

A total of 34 patients with anterior shoulder dislocation and their treating ED physicians were enrolled. 41.1% of all LGI were determined to be misplaced (n=14). Patients with successful LGI had a greater decrease in mean pain scores post-LGI.

Conclusions

LGI had a substantial failure rate in our study. Using ultrasound-guidance to assist intra-articular injections may increase its accuracy and thus reduce pain and the need for subsequent procedural sedation.

Risk factors for failure of reduction of anterior glenohumeral dislocation without sedation

BACKGROUND

Although anterior glenohumeral dislocations are common, the reduction procedure is often difficult, requiring sedation or anesthesia. To date, the risk factors for reduction failure without sedation have not been fully investigated. This study aimed to clarify the predictive factors that render the reduction of anterior glenohumeral dislocation without sedation difficult by use of multivariate analyses.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 156 patients who underwent attempted reduction of anterior glenohumeral dislocation between 2006 and 2019. Patients were included based on the following criteria: traumatic dislocation, undergoing attempted reduction using the traction-countertraction method, and acute dislocation in which reduction was attempted within 2 days of the injury. The dependent variable was set as an irreducible glenohumeral dislocation without sedation, which was defined as a reduction failure in this study. Explanatory variables included age, sex, side of injury, recurrent dislocation, axillary nerve injury, time from dislocation to attempted reduction, greater tuberosity fracture, humeral neck fracture, glenoid rim fracture, and glenohumeral osteoarthritis. We evaluated these outcomes from radiographs and clinical notes. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Baseline variables, which were observed to be significant in the univariate analysis, were included in multivariate models, which used logistic regression to identify independent predictors of reduction failure.

RESULTS

Of the 156 patients, 25 (16.0%) experienced reduction failure. Multivariate analyses showed that older age (≥55 years) (odds ratio [OR], 3.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-10.4; P = .036), greater tuberosity fractures (OR, 3.6; 95% CI, 1.1-12.2; P = .033), and glenoid rim fractures (OR, 11.5; 95% CI, 1.5-87.7; P = .018) were risk factors for reduction failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrated that multiple factors were associated with unsuccessful reduction of anterior glenohumeral dislocation without sedation. In elderly patients or patients with concurrent greater tuberosity fractures and glenoid rim fractures, reduction failure could occur in the absence of sedation; thus, the administration of sedatives or anesthesia should be considered.

BET 1: Can acute shoulder dislocations be reduced using intra-articular local anaesthetic infiltration as an alternative to intravenous analgesia with or without sedation?

A short cut review was carried out to establish whether intra-articular injection of local anaesthetic is an effective alternative to intravenous analgesia with or without sedation to facilitate reduction of acute shoulder dislocations. Eleven studies were considered relevant to the question. The author, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes, results and study weaknesses of these studies are tabulated. The clinical bottom line is that intra-articular injection of local anaesthetic is a safe and effective method of providing procedural analgesia for the reduction of acute shoulder dislocations.

A Three-dimensional Printed Low-cost Anterior Shoulder Dislocation Model for Ultrasound-guided Injection Training

Anterior shoulder dislocations are the most common, large joint dislocations that present to the emergency department (ED). Numerous studies support the use of intraarticular local anesthetic injections for the safe, effective, and time-saving reduction of these dislocations. Simulation training is an alternative and effective method for training compared to bedside learning. There are no commercially available ultrasound-compatible shoulder dislocation models. We utilized a three-dimensional (3D) printer to print a model that allows the visualization of the ultrasound anatomy (sonoanatomy) of an anterior shoulder dislocation. We utilized an open-source file of a shoulder, available from embodi3D® (Bellevue, WA, US). After approximating the relative orientation of the humerus to the glenoid fossa in an anterior dislocation, the humerus and scapula model was printed with an Ultimaker-2 Extended+ 3D® (Ultimaker, Cambridge, MA, US) printer using polylactic acid filaments. A 3D model of the external shoulder anatomy of a live human model was then created using Structure Sensor®(Occipital, San Francisco, CA, US), a 3D scanner. We aligned the printed dislocation model of the humerus and scapula within the resultant external shoulder mold. A pourable ballistics gel solution was used to create the final shoulder phantom. The use of simulation in medicine is widespread and growing, given the restrictions on work hours and a renewed focus on patient safety. The adage of "see one, do one, teach one" is being replaced by deliberate practice. Simulation allows such training to occur in a safe teaching environment. The ballistic gel and polylactic acid structure effectively reproduced the sonoanatomy of an anterior shoulder dislocation. The 3D printed model was effective for practicing an in-plane ultrasound-guided intraarticular joint injection. 3D printing is effective in producing a low-cost, ultrasound-capable model simulating an anterior shoulder dislocation. Future research will determine whether provider confidence and the use of intraarticular anesthesia for the management of shoulder dislocations will improve after utilizing this model.

Intra-articular Hematoma Block Compared to Procedural Sedation for Closed Reduction of Ankle Fractures

BACKGROUND

Initial treatment for a displaced ankle fracture is closed reduction and splinting. This is typically performed in conjunction with either an intra-articular hematoma block (IAHB) or procedural sedation (PS) to assist with pain control. The purpose of this study was to compare the safety of IAHB to PS and evaluate the efficiency and efficacy for each method.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review for ankle fractures requiring manipulation was performed for patients seen in a level I trauma center from 2005 to 2016. The primary outcome was rate of successful reduction. Several secondary outcome measures were defined: reduction attempts, time until successful reduction, time spent in the emergency department (ED), rate of hospital admission, and adverse events. The analysis included 221 patients who received IAHB and 114 patients who received PS.

RESULTS

The demographics between the 2 groups were similar, with the exception that more patients with a dislocation received PS, which prompted a subgroup analysis. This analysis demonstrated that patients with an ankle fracture and associated tibiotalar joint subluxation underwent closed reduction in a shorter period of time with the use of an IAHB compared with those receiving PS. In patients sustaining a tibiotalar fracture dislocation, patients receiving PS were successfully reduced with 1 reduction attempt more frequently than those receiving IAHB. Orthopedic surgeons also had higher rates of success on first attempt compared with ED providers.

CONCLUSION

Both IAHB and PS were excellent options for analgesia that resulted in high rates of successful closed reduction of ankle fractures with adequate safety. IAHB can be considered a first-line agent for patients with an ankle fracture and associated joint subluxation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative series.

An Effective Treatment in the Austere Environment? A Critical Appraisal into the Use of Intra-Articular Local Anesthetic to Facilitate Reduction in Acute Shoulder Dislocation

Acute shoulder dislocation is a common injury in the outdoor environment. The objective of this systematic review of the literature was to determine if intra-articular local anesthetic (IAL) is an effective treatment that could have prehospital application. A methodical search of MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE databases targeted publications from January 1, 1990 until January 1, 2017. Eligible articles compared IAL with other analgesic techniques in patients 16 years or older experiencing acute glenohumeral dislocation. Reduction success, complications, and patient-reported outcome measures underwent comparison. All identified publications originated from the hospital setting. Procedural success rates ranged widely among randomized control trials comparing IAL with intravenous analgesia and sedation (IAL 48-100%, intravenous analgesia and sedation 44-100%). A pooled risk ratio [RR] favored intravenous analgesia and sedation (RR 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-0.98), but there was significant inconsistency within the analysis (I² = 75%). IAL provided lower complication rates (4/170, 2%) than intravenous analgesia and sedation (20/150, 13%) (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.04-1.19, I² = 63%). One trial found a clinically relevant reduction in visual analogue pain scores when comparing IAL against no additional analgesia in the first minute (IAL 21±13 mm; control 49±15 mm; P<0.001) and fifth minute (IAL 10±10 mm; control 40±14 mm, P<0.001) after reduction. The results suggest that IAL is an effective intervention for acute anterior shoulder dislocation that would have a place in the repertoire of the remote physician. Further research might be beneficial in determining the outcomes of performing IAL in the prehospital setting.

Intra-articular lidocaine versus intravenous sedative and analgesic for reduction of anterior shoulder dislocation

Objective

This prospective clinical trial was performed to compare the safety and efficiency of intra-articular lidocaine (IAL) versus intravenous sedative and analgesic (IVSA) in reduction of anterior shoulder dislocation.

Materials and methods

Patients with anterior shoulder dislocation were randomly divided into 2 groups to receive IAL and IVSA. One group patients received an intravenous dose of 0.05 mg/kg midazolam and 1 μg/kg fentanyl, while the other group received 20 mL intra-articular lidocaine (1%). Patient satisfaction (via a standard 5-choice questionnaire), pain score (based on visual analog scale ranging from 0 to 10 points), comfort reduction, recovery time, and side effects were recorded and compared between the two groups before, during and after the reduction procedure.

Results

Totally 104 patients with acute anterior shoulder dislocation and the mean age of 28.75 ± 7.24 years were included (86.5% male). There was no statistically significant difference between IAL and IVSA groups regarding age (p = 0.45) and gender (p = 0.25). A total of forty-seven (45.2%) patients, distributed in both groups, had a history of anterior shoulder dislocation. A significant difference was seen with regard to diminished pain intensity during reduction in IAL group (p < 0.001); Complications including nausea, apnea, hypoxia and headache were only observed in IVSA group, and there was no adverse effect in IAL group; increased patient satisfaction in IVSA group (p = 0.007); similar success rate at first attempt of reduction in both groups, and a shorter time to discharge in IAL group (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

It seems that the use of intra-articular lidocaine for reduction of anterior shoulder dislocation is effective, safe, and time saving in the emergency department and has few complications. It can be considered as the first line analgesia in managing anterior shoulder dislocation.

Intra-articular lidocaine versus intravenous sedation for the reduction of anterior shoulder dislocations in the emergency department

Objective:

The objective was to compare intra-articular lidocaine (IAL) versus intravenous sedation (IVS) for the reduction of acute, anterior shoulder dislocations in the emergency department (ED) in terms of ED length of stay, rate of successful reductions, patient satisfaction, and complications.

Methods:

This was a prospective, randomized trial. Patients in the IAL group received 4 mg/kg (up to 200 mg) of 1% lidocaine injected into the glenohumeral joint using a lateral approach. Patients in the IVS group received medications for sedation as per the discretion of the treating physician. Follow-up was arranged within 2 weeks of the ED visit to assess for complications.

Results:

Forty-four patients (25 IAL, 19 IVS) were included. This trial was stopped early owing to a combination of unexpected findings in success, resource limitations, and difficulty in patient enrolment. Median time from first physician assessment to patient discharge was not different between the IAL (170 minutes) group and the IVS (145 minutes) group (Δ –25 minutes; 95% CI –32, 70;p= 0.46). There was a significantly lower rate (p&lt; 0.001) of successful closed reduction in the IAL group (48%) compared to the IVS group (100%). Patient satisfaction and physician ease of reduction were higher in the IVS group compared to the IAL group (p&lt; 0.05). There were no reported complications in either group at time of reduction or follow-up.

Conclusions:

There was no difference in ED length of stay between groups. There was a lower rate of successful reductions and lower satisfaction scores in the IAL group.

Survey on the management of acute first-time anterior shoulder dislocation amongst Dutch public hospitals

INTRODUCTION

The primary aim of this study was to record how orthopaedic surgeons are currently managing acute first-time anterior shoulder dislocation (AFASD) 8 years after introduction of the Dutch national guideline: "acute primary shoulder dislocation, diagnostics and treatment" in 2005. The second aim was to evaluate how these surgeons treat recurrent instability after AFASD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An online questionnaire regarding the management of AFASD and recurrent shoulder instability was held amongst orthopaedic surgeons of all 98 Dutch hospitals.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 60%. Of the respondents, 75% had a local protocol for managing AFASD, of which 28% had made changes in their treatment protocol after the introduction of the national guideline. The current survey showed wide variety in the overall treatment policies for AFASD. Twenty-seven percent of the orthopaedic surgeons were currently unaware of the national guideline. The variability in treatment for AFASD was present throughout the whole treatment from which policy at the emergency department; when to operate for recurrent instability; type of surgical technique for stabilization and type of fixation of the labrum. As for the treatment of recurrent instability, the same variability was seen: 36% of the surgeons perform only arthroscopic procedures, 7% only open and 57% perform both open and arthroscopic procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the introduction of the national guideline for the initial management of AFASD in 2005, still great variety among orthopaedic surgeons in the Netherlands was present. As for the surgical stabilization technique, the vast majority of the respondents are performing an arthroscopic shoulder stabilization procedure at the expense of the more traditional open procedure as a first treatment option for post-traumatic shoulder instability.

Acute management of shoulder dislocations

The shoulder joint has the greatest range of motion of any joint in the body. However, it relies on soft-tissue restraints, including the capsule, ligaments, and musculature, for stability. Therefore, this joint is at the highest risk for dislocation. Thorough knowledge of the shoulder's anatomy as well as classification of dislocations, anesthetic techniques, and reduction maneuvers is crucial for early management of acute shoulder dislocation. Given the lack of comparative studies on various reduction techniques, the choice of technique is based on physician preference. The orthopaedic surgeon must be well versed in several reduction methods and ascertain the best technique for each patient.

Intra-articular lidocaine versus intravenous analgesia and sedation for manual closed reduction of acute anterior shoulder dislocation: an updated meta-analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare intra-articular lidocaine (IAL) with intravenous analgesia and sedation (IVAS) for manual closed reduction of acute anterior shoulder dislocation.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

SETTING

Metropolitan medical university.

MEASUREMENTS

A literature search was conducted of PubMed, Ovid and Cochrane Library, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from January 1, 1990 to September 1, 2012, that compared IAL with IVAS for manual closed reduction of acute anterior shoulder dislocation. Effective data were pooled using fixed-effects or random-effects models with mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) for continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine RCTs comprising 438 patients were analyzed. Statistical analyses showed that IAL was superior to IVAS with respect to lower complication risk (P < 0.00001) and shorter mean hospital length of stay (P = 0.03). No significant differences were noted in success of joint reduction (P = 0.16), patient satisfaction (P = 0.12), or postreduction pain relief (P = 0.76). However, IAL required more time than IVAS from injection to reduction (P < 0.00001). Subgroup analyses showed that IVAS was associated with higher risks of respiratory depression (P < 0.0001), vomiting (P = 0.04), and thrombophlebitis (P = 0.008), but no statistical differences were identified in nausea (P = 0.06), hypotension (P = 0.10), drowsiness (P = 0.45), or headache (P = 0.29).

CONCLUSIONS

Intra-articular lidocaine injection may be safer than IVAS because there are fewer risks of postoperative complications with IAL. Both techniques are similarly effective for manual closed reduction of acute anterior shoulder dislocation.

Intra-articular lidocaine for reduction of shoulder dislocation

Anterior shoulder dislocation is the most common joint dislocation seen in the emergency department. Although emergency medicine providers use several techniques for reduction, each method is associated with potential discomfort for the patient. In addition, pain from the dislocated shoulder causes muscle spasm that impedes reduction. Therefore, both analgesia and procedural sedation are often used to reduce pain and enable reduction. Intra-articular injection of lidocaine has demonstrated efficacy in reduction of pain and facilitation of shoulder reduction compared with analgesia and sedation. Intra-articular lidocaine may also reduce time to successful reduction of shoulder dislocations.

Ultrasound-guided intra-articular lidocaine block for reduction of anterior shoulder dislocation in the pediatric emergency department

We report a case of successful reduction of an anterior shoulder dislocation after ultrasound-guided intra-articular lidocaine (IAL) block with subsequent sonographic confirmation of reduction. Current literature suggests that IAL can provide similar levels of analgesia as intravenous sedation, and IAL block is associated with lower complication rates and shorter emergency department stays. However, these studies may be limited by uncertainty about the accuracy of landmark-based glenohumeral injections. The use of beside ultrasound may improve the effectiveness of IAL block for reduction of anterior shoulder dislocation and provide a mechanism for immediate postreduction evaluation of the placement of the humeral head.

Intra-articular Lidocaine Injection for Shoulder Reductions: A Clinical Review

Context:

The shoulder is the most commonly dislocated joint, and shoulder dislocations are very common in sports. Many of these dislocations present to the office or training room for evaluation. Usual practice is an attempt at manual reduction without analgesia and then transfer to the emergency department if unsuccessful. The clinical efficacy of intra-articular lidocaine for reduction of anterior shoulder dislocations in the outpatient setting was examined.

Evidence Acquisition:

An OVID MEDLINE search (1966-present) was performed using the keywords shoulder, reduction, and analgesia as well as shoulder, intra-articular, and lidocaine. Search limits included articles in the English language. Bibliographic references from these articles were also examined to identify pertinent literature.

Results:

Six randomized controlled clinical trials were identified that directly addressed this clinical technique. Although the reduction techniques used in these studies were not controlled, there was no statistically significant difference in success rates between groups. The complication rate, length of stay, and costs were significantly less in the intra-articular lidocaine group when compared with the intravenous sedation group.

Conclusions:

According to current evidence, the use of intra-articular lidocaine injection for reduction of anterior shoulder dislocations is not harmful and is likely advantageous in the outpatient clinical setting.

Effectiveness of intra-articular lidocaine injection for reduction of anterior shoulder dislocation: randomized clinical trial

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE

Shoulder dislocation is the most common dislocation among the large joints. The aim here was to compare the effectiveness of reduction of acute anterior shoulder dislocation with or without articular anesthesia.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Prospective randomized trial conducted in Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (EPM-Unifesp).

METHODS

From March 2008 to December 2009, 42 patients with shoulder dislocation were recruited. Reductions using traction-countertraction for acute anterior shoulder dislocation with and without lidocaine articular anesthesia were compared. As the primary outcome, pain was assessed through application of a visual analogue scale before reduction, and one and five minutes after the reduction maneuver was performed. Complications were also assessed.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients were included: 20 in the group without analgesia (control group) and 22 in the group that received intra-articular lidocaine injection. The group that received intra-articular lidocaine had a statistically greater decrease in pain over time than shown by the control group, both in the first minute (respectively: mean 2.1 (0 to 5.0), standard deviation, SD 1.3, versus mean 4.9 (2.0 to 7.0, SD 1.5; P < 0.001) and the fifth minute (respectively: mean 1.0; 0 to 3.0; SD = 1.0 versus mean 4.0; 1.0 to 6.0; SD = 1.4; P < 0.001). There was one failure in the control group. There were no other complications in either group.

CONCLUSION

Reduction of anterior shoulder dislocation using intra-articular lidocaine injection is effective, since it is safe and diminishes the pain.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN27127703.

A prospective comparison of procedural sedation and ultrasound-guided interscalene nerve block for shoulder reduction in the emergency department

OBJECTIVES

Emergency physicians (EPs) are beginning to use ultrasound (US) guidance to perform regional nerve blocks. The primary objective of this study was to compare length of stay (LOS) in patients randomized to US-guided interscalene block or procedural sedation to facilitate reduction of shoulder dislocation in the emergency department (ED). The secondary objectives were to compare one-on-one health care provider time, pain experienced by the patient during reduction, and patient satisfaction between the two groups.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized study of patients presenting to the ED with shoulder dislocation. The study was conducted at an academic Level I trauma center ED with an annual census of approximately 80,000. Patients were eligible for the study if they were at least 18 years of age and required reduction of a shoulder dislocation. A convenience sample of patients was randomized to either traditional procedural sedation or US-guided interscalene nerve block. Procedural sedation was performed with etomidate as the sole agent. Interscalene blocks were performed by hospital-credentialed EPs using sterile technique and a SonoSite MicroMaxx US machine with a high-frequency linear array transducer. Categorical variables were evaluated using Fisher's exact test, and continuous variables were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients were enrolled, with 21 patients randomized to each group. The groups were not significantly different with respect to sex or age. The mean (±SD) LOS in the ED was significantly higher in the procedural sedation group (177.3 ± 37.9 min) than in the US-guided interscalene block group (100.3 ± 28.2 minutes; p < 0.0001). The mean (±SD) one-on-one health care provider time was 47.1 (±9.8) minutes for the sedation group and 5 (±0.7) minutes for the US-guided interscalene block group (p < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in patient satisfaction or pain experienced during the procedure. There were no significant differences between groups with respect to complications such as hypoxia or hypotension (p = 0.49).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, patients undergoing shoulder dislocation reduction using US-guided interscalene block spent less time in the ED and required less one-on-one health care provider time compared to those receiving procedural sedation. There was no difference in pain level or satisfaction when compared to procedural sedation patients.

Intra-articular lignocaine versus intravenous analgesia with or without sedation for manual reduction of acute anterior shoulder dislocation in adults

BACKGROUND

There is conflicting evidence regarding the use of intra-articular lignocaine injection for the closed manual reduction of acute anterior shoulder dislocations. A systematic review may help cohere the conflicting evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of intra-articular lignocaine and intravenous analgesia (with or without sedation) for reduction of acute anterior shoulder dislocation.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to March 2010), and EMBASE (1980 to March 2010). We searched Current Controlled Trials metaRegister of Clinical Trials (compiled by Current Science) (March 2010). We imposed no language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing intra-articular lignocaine (IAL) with intravenous analgesia with or without sedation (IVAS) in adults aged 18 years and over for reduction of acute anterior shoulder dislocation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Where possible, data were pooled and relative risks (RR) and mean differences (MD), each with 95% confidence intervals (CI), were computed using the Cochrane Review Manager statistical package (RevMan).

MAIN RESULTS

Of 1041 publications obtained from the search strategy, we examined nine studies. Four studies were excluded, and five studies with 211 participants were eligible for inclusion. There was no difference in the immediate success rate of IAL when compared with IVAS in the closed manual reduction of acute anterior shoulder dislocation (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.10). There were significantly fewer adverse effects associated with IAL compared with IVAS (RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.43). The mean time spent in the emergency department was significantly less with IAL compared with IVAS (MD 109.46 minutes; 95% CI 84.60 to 134.32). One trial reported significantly less time for reduction with IVAS (105 seconds; 95% CI 84.0 to 126.1) compared with IAL (284.6 seconds; 95% CI 185.3 to 383.9). One trial reported no joint infection associated with intra-articular lignocaine injection and no mortality associated with either IAL or IVAS.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We observed no significant difference between IAL and IVAS with regard to the immediate success rate of reduction, pain during reduction, post-reduction pain relief and reduction failure. Compared to IVAS, IAL may be less expensive and may be associated with fewer adverse effects and a shorter recovery time.

Pain relief for reduction of acute anterior shoulder dislocations: a prospective randomized study comparing intravenous sedation with intra-articular lidocaine

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to compare the effectiveness of intra-articular lidocaine (IAL) versus intravenous Demerol and Diazepam (IVS) in reduction of acute anterior shoulder dislocation.

DESIGN

This is a prospective randomized study.

SETTING

Emergency room setting.

PATIENTS

Thirty-one dislocations reduced with IVS, whereas 32 patients were reduced using IAL.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The visual analog pain scale was used before analgesic administration and during the closed manipulative reduction. Length of time since dislocation, frequency of dislocation, ease of reduction, patient satisfaction, adverse effects, and duration of hospitalization were recorded.

RESULTS

The IVS group had a 100% success rate, whereas the IAL group had a 19% (six of 32) failure rate (P = 0.024). However, there was no significant difference in terms of pain relief (P = 0.23) or patient satisfaction (P = 0.085) between both groups. In addition, patients in the IAL group had a shorter duration of hospitalization and no reported complications, whereas the intravenous group had a longer hospital stay and a 29% complication rate. The cost of IAL was 32% less than the cost for IVS.

CONCLUSION

IAL was more cost effective than the IVS method. IAL provided adequate pain relief and fewer complications and is a viable option for analgesia during reduction of acute shoulder dislocation.

Regional anesthesia for acute traumatic injuries in the emergency room

Since the introduction of cocaine in 1884, regional nerve block procedures have been used in anesthesia practice for over 100 years. While almost all medical specialties use simple regional anesthesia techniques, anesthesia providers use a wider variety of more specific nerve block techniques than any other speciality. Anesthesiologists have assumed a vital role in recent military conflicts and, together with surgeons and emergency physicians, have introduced regional anesthesia techniques for the treatment and transport of injured soldiers. While such techniques have only been applied to a limited extent in civilian emergency settings, it is likely that current military experience will enhance future use of regional anesthesia techniques for the care of trauma patients in the civilian prehospital and emergency room settings.

TREATMENT OF TRAUMATIC GLENOHUMERAL DISLOCATION: A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY

Objective: The aim of the present study was to investigate Brazilian orthopedists' opinions regarding the main aspects of the treatment of glenohumeral traumatic dislocation and compare these to literature's current concepts. Methods: Two hundred questionnaires containing 13 items were randomly distributed to orthopedists who were attending a Brazilian orthopedics congress; 158 were filled, in correctly and were considered in this study. Results: The preferred maneuver was traction-countertraction (60.8%). Among the respondents, 68.4% stated that glenohumeral dislocation reduction was achieved in the first attempt in 90% of the cases. The first attempt of reduction occurred mainly in the Emergency room (96.5%). Seventy-nine individuals (50%) reported that they do not use any analgesic prior to reduction. The majority of the participants immobilize their patients after the reduction (98.1%). 75.4% of them keep their patients immobilized from 2 to 3 weeks. Conclusion: Generally, Brazilian orthopaedists perform tractioncountertraction maneuvers, achieving reduction in the first attempt in more than 90% of the cases in the Emergency room. No previous analgesic agent is used prior to reduction. Immobilization of the patient is made with a Velpeau dressing or a sling for 2 to 3 weeks.

Intraarticular lidocaine versus intravenous procedural sedation with narcotics and benzodiazepines for reduction of the dislocated shoulder: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Anterior shoulder dislocations commonly present to the emergency department (ED). The time associated with procedural sedation for the reduction of anterior shoulder dislocations can be lengthy and may require use of additional personnel. Complications associated with intravenous (IV) medications for procedural sedation are well documented.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to determine if intraarticular lidocaine (IAL) injection is as effective as IV procedural sedation with narcotics and benzodiazepines for reduction of anterior shoulder dislocations.

METHODS

This was a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The authors performed a PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane database search using key words: "shoulder dislocation" and "reduction" and retrieved every RCT published that compared the use of IV sedation to IAL as medication for reduction. Each manuscript was reviewed and the results of each was compared regarding medications used, success of reduction, complications, pain perceived, ease of reduction, and time spent in the ED.

RESULTS

Six Level 1 RCTs were identified. No studies showed a statistically significant difference in success rate between IAL versus IV sedation. The complication rate was significantly higher in the IV sedation groups (p < 0.001), and the total time spent in the ED was longer for the IV sedation group.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of IAL for reduction of anterior shoulder dislocations should be strongly considered as a first line therapy because it is effective and safe and may potentially reduce time spent in the ED.

Intra-articular block compared with conscious sedation for closed reduction of ankle fracture-dislocations. A prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Ankle fracture-dislocations require urgent reduction to protect the soft tissues, to minimize articular injury, and to allow swelling to decrease. Conscious sedation is commonly used to provide analgesia for closed reduction of this injury. We hypothesized that an intra-articular block of the ankle would provide similar analgesia and the ability to reduce the ankle with a lower risk than conscious sedation.

METHODS

Between September 2005 and January 2007, forty-two patients with an ankle fracture-dislocation presented to our emergency department and were enrolled in a prospective randomized study. The patients were given either conscious sedation or an intra-articular lidocaine block for the reduction and for the application of a plaster splint. After the reduction maneuver, the patients used a visual analog pain scale to rate the level of pain before, during, and after the procedure, from 1 (no pain) to 10 (severe pain). The senior authors reviewed the injury and reduction radiographs to confirm the reduction of the ankle joint.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients were randomized to each group. There was no difference in demographic data or fracture patterns between the groups. Both the sedation and the block reduced the pain to a similar degree. The pain reduction (the initial pain level minus the level of pain after medication was given or injected) was an average (and standard deviation) of 4.6 +/- 3.3 for the block group and 4.2 +/- 3.5 for the sedation group (p = 0.64). The average change in the level of pain between the initial presentation and during the reduction was 3.6 +/- 3.8 for the block group and 4.1 +/- 3.3 for the sedation group. Overall, there was no difference in analgesia provided by these two methods (p = 0.71). An acceptable reduction was achieved for forty-one of the forty-two patients with one failure in the sedation group. The average time for ankle reduction and stabilization in a splint was 81.5 minutes for the sedation group and 63.8 minutes for the block group.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with conscious sedation, an intra-articular lidocaine block provides a similar degree of analgesia and sufficient analgesia to achieve closed reduction of ankle fracture-dislocations.

WITHDRAWN: Interventions for shoulder pain

BACKGROUND

Shoulder pain is a common problem and although there are many accepted standard forms of conservative therapy for shoulder disorders including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, glucocorticosteroid injections, oral glucocorticosteroid medication, manipulation under anaesthesia, physical therapy, hydrodilatation (distension arthrography) and surgery, evidence of their efficacy is not well established.

OBJECTIVES

To review the efficacy of common interventions for shoulder pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group trials register, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Science Citation Index) up to May 1998, and hand searched major textbooks, bibliographies of relevant literature, the fugitive literature, and the subject indices of relevant journals including: American College of Rheumatology;British College of Rheumatologists; the Biennial Conference of the Manipulative Physiotherapy Association of Australia;International Federation of Manual Therapists conference proceedings; British Orthopaedic Association;and American Orthopaedic Association.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Each identified study was assessed for possible inclusion by two independent reviewers based on the blinded methods sections. The determinants for inclusion were that the trial include an intervention of interest (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, intra-articular or subacromial glucocorticosteroid injection, oral glucocorticosteroid treatment, physiotherapy, manipulation under anaesthesia, hydrodilatation, or surgery); that treatment allocation was randomized; and that the outcome assessment was blinded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Methodological quality was assessed by two independent, blinded reviewers. Data relating to selection criteria, outcome measurement and treatment effect was extracted from the blinded trials. Range of motion scores were entered as degrees of restriction to movement, and all pain and overall effect scores were transformed to 100 point scales. For continuous outcome measures, where standard deviation was not reported it was either calculated from the raw data or converted from standard error of the mean. If neither of these were reported, authors were contacted in an effort to obtain the missing values. Effect sizes were calculated and combined in a pooled analysis if study population, endpoint and intervention were comparable.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty one trials met inclusion criteria. Mean methodological quality score was 16.8 (9.5 - 22) out of possible score of 40. Selection criteria varied widely even for the same diagnostic label. There was no uniformity in outcome measures used and their measurement properties were rarely reported. Effect sizes for individual trials were small (-1.4 to 3.0). The results of only three studies investigating "rotator cuff tendonitis" could be pooled. Benefit of subacromial steroid injection over placebo for improving range of abduction (weighted difference between means (WMD) 35 degrees , 95% CI 14 to 55) was the only positive finding.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is little evidence to support or refute the efficacy of common interventions for shoulder pain. As well as, the need for further well designed clinical trials, more research is needed to establish a uniform method of defining shoulder disorders and developing outcome measures which are valid, reliable and responsive in these study populations.

Survey of the management of acute traumatic first-time anterior shoulder dislocation among trauma clinicians in the UK

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this work was to survey how acute traumatic first-time anterior shoulder dislocation (AFSD) is managed among trauma clinicians in UK using a postal questionnaire.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 150 questionnaires were sent out to active consultant members of the British Trauma Society in the UK. Questions were laid out in two 'workgroups'. In Workgroup One, an assortment of questions was included regarding choices and methods of analgesia, methods of monitoring used, methods of reduction, and position of immobilisation. In Workgroup Two, three different case scenarios were analysed to look into the 'post-reduction' management.

RESULTS

The response rate was 60%. Of respondents, 22% have a local protocol for managing AFSD. Almost all respondents recommended pre- and post-reduction X-rays as standard practice. Most respondents favoured systemic analgesia and sedation with airways' monitoring, as opposed to intra-articular anaesthesia (68 versus 9). Eighty-four respondents advocated immobilisation in internal rotation compared to six in external rotation. Only 19% (16 of 84) of respondents would perform an immediate arthroscopic stabilisation in young, fit patients presenting with this type of injury.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey revealed variations among trauma clinicians in managing AFSD on the 'front-line'. There is a need to address the issue of intra-articular analgesia, immobilisation technique and management of AFSD in the young patient with regards to immediate surgical intervention. We suggest that these issues be revised and clarified, ideally in a randomised, controlled, clinical trial prior to the introduction of a protocol for managing this problem.

Treating the Initial Anterior Shoulder Dislocation—An Evidence-based Medicine Approach

This manuscript presents the best available evidence to answer questions regarding the treatment of the patient with an initial anterior shoulder dislocation. The highest levels of evidence available offer the following conclusions: (1) of the many methods to reduce the dislocated shoulder, little data exist to identify the best method. Recommendations are based on low levels of evidence (levels 4 and 5). (2) Premedication with intra-articular lidocaine has fewer complications and requires a shorter time in the emergency room than intravenous sedation with no detectable differences in reduction success rates (level 1). (3) Postreduction immobilization in external rotation may reduce recurrence (level 2), but immobilization in internal rotation does not (level 1). (4) Arthroscopic surgery significantly reduces recurrence compared to a nonoperative approach (level 1), and (5) there are limited data on features that would allow a safe return to play. Expert opinion suggests that return is allowed when motion and strength are nearly normal, and the athletes can engage in sport-specific activities, however, the athlete is at risk for recurrence while playing (levels 4 and 5).

Shoulder dislocation in young athletes: current concepts in management

A fall onto an outstretched arm or a collision on the playing field often leads to an acute anterior shoulder dislocation for high school- and college-age athletes. The diagnosis is usually made by history and physical exam. The angle of impact is an important diagnostic clue. If no neurologic contraindications or signs of acute fracture are seen, radiographs are unnecessary, and early reduction before the onset of muscle spasm is essential. Recent advances in arthroscopic techniques have dramatically reduced the high incidence of recurrent instability in young elite athletes, though nonoperative management with immobilization is still an excellent option.

Comparison of intra-articular lidocaine and intravenous sedation for reduction of shoulder dislocations: a randomized, prospective study

BACKGROUND

Acute anterior glenohumeral dislocations have been commonly treated with closed reduction and the use of intravenous sedation. Recently, the use of intra-articular lidocaine has been advocated as an alternative to sedation, since intravenous access and patient monitoring are not required. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the value of local anesthesia compared with that of the commonly used intravenous sedation during the performance of a standardized reduction technique.

METHODS

In a prospective, randomized study, skeletally mature patients with an isolated glenohumeral joint dislocation and no associated fracture were randomized to receive either intravenous sedation or intra-articular lidocaine to facilitate reduction of the dislocation. Reduction was performed with the modified Stimson method. The two groups were compared with regard to the rate of successful reduction, pain as rated on a visual analog scale, time required for the reduction, time from the reduction until discharge from the emergency department, and cost.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were enrolled in the study. Five (two in the lidocaine group and three in the sedation group) required scapular manipulation in addition to the Stimson technique to reduce the dislocation. The lidocaine group spent significantly less time in the emergency department (average time, seventy-five minutes compared with 185 minutes in the sedation group, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to pain (p = 0.37), success of the Stimson technique (p = 1.00), or time required to reduce the shoulder (p = 0.42). The cost of the intravenous sedation was $97.64 per patient compared with $0.52 for use of the intra-articular lidocaine.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of intra-articular lidocaine to facilitate reduction with the Stimson technique is a safe and effective method for treating acute shoulder dislocations in an emergency room setting. Intra-articular lidocaine requires less money, time, and nursing resources than does intravenous sedation to facilitate reduction with the Stimson technique.

Comparative study of intra-articular lidocaine and intravenous meperidine/diazepam for shoulder dislocations

The purpose of this study was to compare the analgesic effectiveness of intra-articular lidocaine versus intravenous meperidine and diazepam during the reduction of anterior shoulder dislocations. Patients were randomized to one of the two methods before the reduction of shoulder dislocations. Patients marked a visual analog pain scale at baseline, after anesthesia just before reduction, and at the time of discharge. Interference with the procedure caused by pain or lack of muscle relaxation, perception of adequacy of analgesia by the patient, adverse effects, and time to discharge from the Emergency Department (ED) were measured. Differences of outcomes, relative risks (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were derived. Fifty-four patients with anterior shoulder dislocations presenting from May 21, 1998 through January 21, 1999 were included in this study; 29 were randomly assigned to receive intra-articular lidocaine (IAL) and 25 to receive intravenous meperidine/diazepam (IVMD). IAL was less effective than IVMD in relieving pre-reduction pain (p = 0.045) but equally effective in overall pain relief (p = 0.98). IAL was more effective than IVMD in shortening recovery time (p = 0.025). There was an indication favoring IVMD in terms of physician-perceived muscle relaxation and patient's perception of analgesia adequacy. In conclusion, although the IVMD method appears to have some clinically and statistically significant advantages, IAL possesses some favorable features that render it to be an analgesia alternative in shoulder dislocation reduction.

Interventions for shoulder pain

OBJECTIVES

To review the efficacy of common interventions for shoulder pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group trials register, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline, Embase, Cinahl, and Science Citation Index) up to May 1998, and hand searched major textbooks, bibliographies of relevant literature, the fugitive literature, and the subject indices of relevant journals including: American College of Rheumatology;British College of Rheumatologists; the Biennial Conference of the Manipulative Physiotherapy Association of Australia;International Federation of Manual Therapists conference proceedings; British Orthopaedic Association;and American Orthopaedic Association.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Each identified study was assessed for possible inclusion by two independent reviewers based on the blinded methods sections. The determinants for inclusion were that the trial include an intervention of interest (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, intra-articular or subacromial glucocorticosteroid injection, oral glucocorticosteroid treatment, physiotherapy, manipulation under anaesthesia, hydrodilatation, or surgery); that treatment allocation was randomized; and that the outcome assessment was blinded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Methodological quality was assessed by two independent, blinded reviewers. Data relating to selection criteria, outcome measurement and treatment effect was extracted from the blinded trials. Range of motion scores were entered as degrees of restriction to movement, and all pain and overall effect scores were transformed to 100 point scales. For continuous outcome measures, where standard deviation was not reported it was either calculated from the raw data or converted from standard error of the mean. If neither of these were reported, authors were contacted in an effort to obtain the missing values. Effect sizes were calculated and combined in a pooled analysis if study population, endpoint and intervention were comparable.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty one trials met inclusion criteria. Mean methodological quality score was 16.8 (9.5 - 22) out of possible score of 40. Selection criteria varied widely even for the same diagnostic label. There was no uniformity in outcome measures used and their measurement properties were rarely reported. Effect sizes for individual trials were small (-1.4 to 3. 0). The results of only three studies investigating rotator cuff tendonitis could be pooled. Benefit of subacromial steroid injection over placebo for improving range of abduction (weighted difference between means (WMD) 35 degrees, 95% CI 14 to 55) was the only positive finding.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

There is little evidence to support or refute the efficacy of common interventions for shoulder pain. As well as, the need for further well designed clinical trials, more research is needed to establish a uniform method of defining shoulder disorders and developing outcome measures which are valid, reliable and responsive in these study populations.

Emergency department evaluation and treatment of the shoulder and humerus

The shoulder girdle is a versatile anatomic structure with a wide range of mobility and function. Its soft tissue and skeletal components are subject to a variety of injuries spanning from overuse syndromes to acute trauma. This article reviews the key historical and physical examination techniques of the shoulder, and special attention is paid to proper imaging in the emergency department, which aids in the diagnosis of specific disorders. This article also reviews the various therapeutic options, including surgery.

Anesthetic methods for reduction of acute shoulder dislocations: a prospective randomized study comparing intraarticular lidocaine with intravenous analgesia and sedation

A prospective, randomized, nonblinded clinical trial was undertaken to evaluate whether local intraarticular lidocaine injection (IAL) is equally effective in facilitating reduction of acute anterior shoulder dislocations (AASD) as intravenous analgesia/sedation (IVAS). The setting was an urban, Level 1, trauma center. Patients enrolled presented to the emergency department (ED) with radiographically confirmed AASD and were randomized either to the IVAS group or the IAL group. Ease of reduction and pain associated with reduction were measured subjectively using a 10-point scale. There were 49 patients entered into the study, 20 in the IVAS group and 29 in the IAL group. There was no statistically significant difference between mean +/- SD pain scores of 3.32+/-2.39 in the IVAS group and 4.90+/-2.34 in the IAL group (P = .18), or mean +/- SD ease of reduction scores of 3.32+/-2.36 in the IVAS group and 4.45+/-2.46 in the IAL group (P = .12). Although IVAS tended to have a higher success rate (20 of 20) than IAL (25 of 29) in this study, Kaplan-Meier estimates for delayed time-events curves applying the log-rank test showed that this difference was not statistically significant overall (P = .16). However, with reduction rate evaluated as a function of time delay in seeking treatment, patients presenting 5.5 hours after dislocation were more likely to fail treatment with IAL (P = .00001). Additionally, half of the patients in the IAL group who had experience with IVAS did not favor IAL. Emergency physicians should be aware of IAL as an alternative technique that may be considered in patients when there are reasons to avoid systemic analgesia or sedation.

Intra-articular lignocaine versus Entonox for reduction of acute anterior shoulder dislocation

We assessed, in a prospective randomised trial, the relative analgesic effects of Entonox and intra-articular lignocaine (IAL) in patients with acute anterior dislocation of the shoulder. A statistically significant reduction in pain scores was achieved with IAL (7.9 vs 5.2, P < 0.05), but the effect with Entonox was greater (7.8 vs 2.9, P < 0.001). We conclude that Entonox provides better analgesia than IAL in patients with acute anterior shoulder dislocation.

Current concepts in the treatment of anterior shoulder dislocations

Anterior shoulder dislocations are commonly seen in emergency departments. With the recent proliferation of shoulder arthroscopy, the pathoanatomy has been better delineated. Arthroscopic series have confirmed the very high percentage of Bankart lesions (avulsions of the inferior glenohumeral ligament-labral complex), especially in younger patients. A high rate of recurrent dislocation in young patients has been noted in the literature with standard conservative treatment, consisting of immobilization with or without rehabilitation. This high recurrence rate is thought to be due to the Bankart lesion. Recently, investigations with the use of arthroscopic Bankart repairs have shown high success rates in preventing recurrences, with low surgical morbidity. A young, first-time, traumatic anterior dislocation patient should be referred for consideration of possible early arthroscopic Bankart repair, rather than automatically being treated conservatively with immobilization.

Anterior glenohumeral dislocations: what to do and how to do it

Images

Comparison of intra-articular lignocaine and a suprascapular nerve block for acute anterior shoulder dislocation

We compared the analgesic effects of a suprascapular nerve block with intra-articular local anaesthetic in 20 patients presenting with acute anterior glenohumeral dislocations. The intra-articular local anaesthetic technique was a simpler procedure which provided significantly more analgesia for patients.