Return to Play and Recurrent Instability After In-Season Anterior Shoulder Instability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".