Return to Play and Recurrent Instability After In-Season Anterior Shoulder Instability
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on the optimal treatment of in-season athletes with anterior shoulder instability, and limited data are available to guide return to play. PURPOSE: To examine the likelihood of return to sport and the recurrence of instability after an in-season anterior shoulder instability event based on the type of instability (subluxation vs dislocation). Additionally, injury factors and patient-reported outcome scores administered at the time of injury were evaluated to assess the predictability of eventual successful return to sport and time to return to sport during the competitive season. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study (prognosis); Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: Over 2 academic years, 45 contact intercollegiate athletes were prospectively enrolled in a multicenter observational study to assess return to play after in-season anterior glenohumeral instability. Baseline data collection included shoulder injury characteristics and shoulder-specific patient-reported outcome scores at the time of injury. All athletes underwent an accelerated rehabilitation program without shoulder immobilization and were followed during their competitive season to assess the success of return to play and recurrent instability. RESULTS: Thirty-three of 45 (73%) athletes returned to sport for either all or part of the season after a median 5 days lost from competition (interquartile range, 13). Twelve athletes (27%) successfully completed the season without recurrence. Twenty-one athletes (64%) returned to in-season play and had subsequent recurrent instability including 11 recurrent dislocations and 10 recurrent subluxations. Of the 33 athletes returning to in-season sport after an instability event, 67% (22/33) completed the season. Athletes with a subluxation were 5.3 times more likely (odds ratio [OR], 5.32; 95% CI, 1.00-28.07; P = .049) to return to sport during the same season when compared with those with dislocations. Logistic regression analysis suggests that the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.00-1.09; P = .037) and Simple Shoulder Test (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.05; P = .044) administered after the initial instability event are predictive of the ability to return to play. Time loss from sport after a shoulder instability event was most strongly and inversely correlated with the Simple Shoulder Test (P = .007) at the time of initial injury. CONCLUSION: In the largest prospective study evaluating shoulder instability in in-season contact athletes, 27% of athletes returned to play and completed the season without subsequent instability. While the majority of athletes who return to sport complete the season, recurrent instability events are common regardless of whether the initial injury was a subluxation or dislocation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».