Immobilization in External Rotation Versus Internal Rotation After Primary Anterior Shoulder Dislocation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The recurrence rate after primary anterior shoulder dislocation is high, especially in young, active individuals. Recent studies have suggested external rotation immobilization as a method to reduce the rate of recurrent shoulder dislocation in comparison to traditional sling immobilization. PURPOSE: To assess and summarize evidence from randomized controlled trials on the effect of internal rotation versus external rotation immobilization on the rate of recurrence after primary anterior shoulder dislocation. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis. METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and abstracts from recent proceedings were searched for eligible studies. Two reviewers selected studies for inclusion, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data. RESULTS: Six randomized controlled trials (632 patients) were included in this review. Demographic and prognostic variables measured at baseline were similar in the pooled groups. The average age was 30.1 years in the pooled external rotation group and 30.3 years in the pooled internal rotation group. Two studies found that external rotation immobilization reduced the rate of recurrence after initial anterior shoulder dislocation compared with conventional internal rotation immobilization, whereas 4 studies failed to find a significant difference between the 2 groups. This meta-analysis suggested no overall significant difference in the rate of recurrence among patients treated with internal rotation versus external rotation immobilization (risk ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.42-1.14; P = .15). There was no significant difference in the rate of compliance between internal and external rotation immobilization (P = .43). The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index scores were pooled across 3 studies, and there was no significant difference between the 2 groups (P = .54). CONCLUSION: Immobilization in external rotation is not significantly more effective in reducing the recurrence rate after primary anterior shoulder dislocation than immobilization in internal rotation. Additionally, this review suggests that there is minimal difference in patients' perceptions of their health-related quality of life after immobilization in internal versus external rotation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".