How Does External Rotation Bracing Influence Motion and Functional Scores After Arthroscopic Shoulder Stabilization?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: After arthroscopic shoulder stabilization, the loss of motion or delayed recovery of motion remains a clinical problem and may lead to poor patient satisfaction. There remains no consensus regarding the optimal position for postoperative immobilization and it is not known whether the position for shoulder immobilization has an effect on motion and functional recovery. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked: (1) Do patients treated with external rotation (ER) bracing after arthroscopic anterior shoulder stabilization reliably regain ROM and shoulder function? And (2) what is the frequency of recurrent instability and brace-related complications associated with the use of ER bracing? METHODS: Forty consecutive patients with a primary diagnosis of anterior shoulder instability underwent arthroscopic stabilization and received postoperative ER bracing; 33 patients (83%; mean age, 23 years; range, 13-44 years) were followed for at least 1 year postoperatively and seven patients were lost to followup. Shoulder ROM and functional scores were recorded preoperatively and at 2 weeks, 12 weeks, 6 months, and greater than 1 year (mean, 16 months) after surgery. RESULTS: All patients recovered their preoperative ROM and most patients achieved normal ROM by 3 months after surgery. Significant improvements in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability (WOSI) scores were observed at each postoperative time point. The mean (± SD) final scores were 95 ± 9 for the ASES and 87% ± 17% for the WOSI (p < 0.001 compared to preoperative scores). One patient (3%) developed recurrent instability. No patients underwent reoperation for the injured shoulder for any reason during the followup period. CONCLUSIONS: ER bracing after arthroscopic shoulder stabilization is associated with a predictable recovery of ROM and functional score improvement. Future studies comparing ER bracing to traditional sling use should be conducted to determine the optimal method of postoperative immobilization. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".